Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-41255/USCOURTS-ca5-13-41255-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Manuel De La Cruz-Gutierrez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41255

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE MANUEL DE LA CRUZ-GUTIERREZ, also known as Victor Taveras, 

also known as Jose Manuel Taveras De La Cruz-Gutierrez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1247-1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Manuel De La Cruz-Gutierrez (De La Cruz) appeals the 46-month 

sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea to being an alien 

illegally present in the United States following deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) 

and (b). He contends that the district court erroneously applied a 16-level 

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on his prior 

 

* 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

July 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 13-41255 Document: 00513116945 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2015
No. 13-41255

2

Pennsylvania conviction of manufacturing, delivering, or possessing with the 

intent to manufacture or deliver cocaine.

De La Cruz first argues that the Pennsylvania statutory provision under 

which he was convicted does not constitute a “drug trafficking offense” under 

§ 2L1.2 because it criminalizes the distribution of cocaine without 

remuneration. We recently rejected the same argument in United States v. 

Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015).

De La Cruz also argues that Pennsylvania delivery does not qualify as a 

§ 2L1.2 drug trafficking offense because a conviction under the state statute

could rest upon administering a narcotic, an act not included in the Guidelines 

offense. In United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2014), 

cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015), we required “a realistic probability, not a 

theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that 

falls outside the generic definition of a crime.” De La Cruz argues only that 

the available state documents do not preclude the possibility that his 

conviction was for administering or possessing with the intent to administer. 

He presents no situation in a case or his own case in which Pennsylvania courts 

have construed the Pennsylvania statute in such a way. As in Teran-Salas, 

this theoretical possibility is insufficient to show error in the application of the

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement. See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 460.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-41255 Document: 00513116945 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2015