Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40701/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40701-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin Rodriguez-Rodriguez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40701

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-880

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benjamin Rodriguez-Rodriguez challenges the sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 

8 U.S.C. 1326. He claims the district court erroneously imposed a 16-level 

enhancement, pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), based on his 

2001 Texas conviction for possession of a controlled substance, with intent to 

deliver. 

 

* 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 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-40701 Document: 00513076505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2015
No. 14-40701

2

Although post-Booker, the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly 

preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must still properly 

calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in deciding on the 

sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In that 

respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines 

is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States 

v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

Rodriguez first contends that, because his state conviction could have 

been obtained under Texas law by administration of a controlled substance, it 

does not constitute a drug trafficking offense for purposes of the enhancement. 

As he concedes, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 

F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir. 2014).

He additionally claims, for the first time on appeal, that the court plainly 

erred by applying the enhancement because, under Texas law, delivery of a 

controlled substance does not require proof of commercial activity or 

remuneration, and, thus, does not fall within the ordinary meaning of a drug 

trafficking offense. This claim is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 

782 F.3d 198, 205 (5th Cir. 2015).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-40701 Document: 00513076505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2015