Case ID: f-appx_610/html/0406-01.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. Andres SANCHEZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40923
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 20, 2015.
    John Richard Berry, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defen-dani>-Appellant.
    Andres Sanchez-Medina, Washington, MS, pro se.
    Before WIENER, HIGGINSON and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Andres Sanchez-Medina (Sanchez) appeals the 41-month, within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court. He argues that the district court erred by imposing an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(i) based upon the California felony complaint and abstract of judgment evidencing his prior conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11378.

This court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 791 (5th Cir.2015). Because Sanchez’s conviction under § 11378 is not categorically a “drug trafficking offense” for purposes of § 2L1.2, we must employ the modified categorical approach to determine whether his prior conviction warranted the enhancement. See id. at 793-94 (adopting the reasoning of United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 687 (9th Cir.2012)).

The district court was entitled to rely upon the charging document for the § 11378 offense to determine whether it constituted a drug trafficking offense. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). Sanchez does not deny that the felony complaint, which charged him with possessing methamphetamine for sale, is the final charging document; because nothing in the record affirmatively casts doubt upon, or creates ambiguity regarding, whether the felony complaint constitutes the charging document, the district court did not clearly err in finding that it did. See Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d at 795-96.

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.