Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50176/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50176-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Henry Alexander Calix
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50176

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HENRY ALEXANDER CALIX, also known as Ales Calis Gonzalez, also known 

as Hector Omar Calix, also known as Jorge Rafael Hernandez, also known as 

Jose Luis Godinez, also known as Henry Alexannder Calix, also known as 

Henry M. Calix, also known as Jose Bustillo, also known as Aleljandro Cadena, 

also known as Alex Calis-Gonzalez, also known as Alexander Calix,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-471-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Henry Alexander Calix raises 

arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 

458-62 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). In Teran-Salas, we 

 

* 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 Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-50176 Document: 00513080167 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
No. 14-50176

2

determined that the appellant was not entitled to relief based merely on the 

existence of a theoretical possibility that the defendant could be convicted 

under Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that would not 

qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 458. 

Calix has not demonstrated “a realistic probability that Texas would prosecute 

under an ‘administering’ theory in a way that does not also constitute either 

‘dispensing’ or ‘distributing’ under the federal sentencing guidelines.” Id. at 

461-62. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-50176 Document: 00513080167 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015