Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41383/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41383-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joel Torres-Salas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41383

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOEL TORRES-SALAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-379-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Joel Torres-Salas raises an 

argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 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 the defendant could be convicted 

under Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that would not 

 

* 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 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-41383 Document: 00513080099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
No. 14-41383

2

qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 458. 

Torres-Salas 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.

Torres-Salas 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), that an 

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

trafficking offense is warranted regardless whether a 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: 14-41383 Document: 00513080099 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015