Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-41248/USCOURTS-ca5-13-41248-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Trinidad Jaimes-Jaimes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41248

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TRINIDAD JAIMES-JAIMES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-179

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Trinidad Jaimes-Jaimes appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for being found unlawfully in the United States after 

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court 

plainly erred when it enhanced his sentence based on a finding that his 1996 

Louisiana conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana was a 

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

 

* 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 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-41248 Document: 00513130771 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015
No. 13-41248

2

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 

1678 (2013), as well as our decision in United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 

268 (5th Cir. 2005), he contends that the Louisiana statute under which he was 

convicted is broader than the drug trafficking offense definition set forth in the 

commentary to § 2L1.2 because it proscribes the possession with intent to give 

away and administer a controlled substance. Because Jaimes-Jaimes did not 

object to the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement in the district court, we review 

for plain error. See United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir. 2005), 

superseded by regulation on other grounds as stated in United States v. 

Pimpton, 558 F. App’x 335, 337-38 (5th Cir. 2013).

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

petition for cert. filed (June 24, 2015) (No. 14-10355), we held that an 

enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) is warranted regardless whether the 

conviction for the prior drug trafficking offense required proof of remuneration 

or commercial activity. Further, Jaimes-Jaimes has failed to establish a 

realistic probability that Louisiana would prosecute an individual under LA.

REV. STAT. ANN. § 40:966(A)(1) for administering a controlled substance “in a 

way that does not also constitute either ‘dispensing’ or ‘distributing’ under the 

federal sentencing guidelines.” United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 

460-62 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). Therefore, JaimesJaimes cannot show error, plain or otherwise. See Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-41248 Document: 00513130771 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2015