Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40940/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40940-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Agapito Garcia-Contreras
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40940

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL AGAPITO GARCIA-CONTRERAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-290-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Manuel Agapito GarciaContreras raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. TeranSalas, 767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). 

In Teran-Salas, we determined that the appellant was not entitled to relief 

based merely on the existence of a theoretical possibility that a defendant could 

be convicted under Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that 

 

* 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

October 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40940 Document: 00513241713 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
No. 14-40940

2

would not qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Teran-Salas, 767 

F.3d at 458. Garcia-Contreras 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.

Garcia-Contreras also raises an argument that is foreclosed by our 

holding in United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 

2015), petition for cert. filed (June 19, 2015) (No. 14-10355), that an 

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug 

trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether the conviction for the prior 

offense required proof of remuneration or commercial activity.

Accordingly, the Government’s unopposed 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: 14-40940 Document: 00513241713 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015