Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-40829/USCOURTS-ca5-13-40829-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Alvarado-Aranda
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40829

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ALVARADO-ARANDA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-1878-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Alvarado-Aranda (Alvarado) appeals the 51-month sentence 

imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after 

deportation. He contends that the district court erroneously applied a 12-level 

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on his 1995 Illinois 

conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to deliver. Relying mainly on 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013), 

 

* 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 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-40829 Document: 00513119737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2015
No. 13-40829

2

Alvarado argues that the Illinois statutory provisions under which he was 

convicted are broader than the definition of “drug trafficking offense” set forth 

in the commentary to § 2L1.2 because they criminalize the distribution of 

illegal drugs without remuneration.

As Alvarado concedes, this court’s review is for plain error because he

did not object to the enhancement in the district court. See Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To demonstrate plain error, Alvarado must 

show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial 

rights. See id. If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct 

the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

We recently rejected the argument that a conviction for giving or offering 

to give away a controlled substance for no remuneration does not constitute a 

felony drug trafficking offense for purposes of the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) 

enhancement. United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 201, 205 (5th Cir. 

2015). In view of Martinez-Lugo, Alvarado fails to show that the district court 

committed a clear or obvious error by enhancing his offense level. The 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-40829 Document: 00513119737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2015