Case ID: f-appx_589/html/0303-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario VEGA-RENOVA, also known as Arturo Vega Renova, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50015
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 8, 2015.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ruben Nunez, Esq., Law Office of Ruben Nunez, P.C., El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mario Vega-Renova (Vega) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry of a deported alien, and he was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment. Vega appeals the district court’s determination that his prior Illinois conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine qualified as a drug trafficking offense warranting a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i). He argues that the Illinois statute criminalizes the “administering” and “dispensing” of drugs, which is not covered by the Guidelines or 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Because Vega preserved his argument in the district court, our review is de novo.

Vega has identified no prior Illinois case applying the statute in an “administering” or “dispensing” situation. A theoretical possibility that a statute might encompass types of conduct that would not qualify as a drug trafficking offense is insufficient. Thus, the district court was correct in determining that Vega’s conviction was a drug trafficking offense for purposes of the § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) enhancement.

In addition, even if Vega could establish error, any such error would be harmless because the district court stated that it would impose the same sentence regardless of any misapplication of the enhancement. Vega’s argument that the district court erred in imposing an alternative, above-guidelines sentence is without merit.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      
        .United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir.2014); see United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 548 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 512, 187 L.Ed.2d 365 (2013).
     
      
      . See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 460-61.
     
      
      . United States v. Carrasco-Tercero, 745 F.3d 192, 197-98 (5th Cir.2014).
     
      
      . See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 461-62 & n. 5.
     
      
      . See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752-53 (5th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Richardson, 713 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 230, 187 L.Ed.2d 171 (2013).
     
      
      . See United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 656-59 (5th Cir.2008).