Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20286/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20286-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Enrique Avellaneda-Jaimes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20286

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ENRIQUE AVELLANEDA-JAIMES, also known as Jaimes Enrique 

Avellaneda, also known as Enrique Avellaneda Jaimes, also known as Enrique 

Avellaneda, also known as Enrique Jaimes Avellaneda, also known as Enrique 

Avella,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-28-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Avellaneda-Jaimes (Avellaneda) pleaded guilty to illegal 

reentry following deportation. In determining the sentence, the district court 

increased Avellaneda’s offense level by eight levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

* 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

February 11, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-20286 Document: 00512934783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/11/2015
No. 14-20286

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), because he was convicted prior to his deportation of an 

aggravated felony, that is, the Texas offense of felony theft.

Avellaneda argues that the record does not establish the subsection of 

Texas’s theft statute that he was convicted of violating, and that the state’s 

theft statute encompasses conduct broader than the generic contemporary 

definition of theft because it criminalizes the appropriation of property that 

has been induced by fraud or deception. He concedes, however, that this issue 

is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar, 768 

F.3d 437, 438 (5th Cir. 2014), which was decided during the pendency of this 

appeal, and he states that he wishes to preserve the issue for further review 

by the Supreme Court.

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-20286 Document: 00512934783 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/11/2015