Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40763/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40763-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Omar Rivera-Diaz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40763

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

OMAR RIVERA-DIAZ,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-156-1

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Omar Rivera-Diaz challenges his sentence of, inter alia, 46 months’ 

imprisonment, imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being found in 

the United States after being removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He 

claims the district court erroneously enhanced his offense level by 16, pursuant 

to advisory Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) (pre-deportation 

conviction for certain drug-trafficking offenses). In that regard, he presents 

 

* 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

August 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40763 Document: 00513151206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2015
No. 14-40763

2

two bases for maintaining the court improperly ruled Rivera’s 2010 Texas 

conviction for possession, with intent to deliver, a controlled substance 

constituted a “drug trafficking offense” under that Guideline. For the reasons 

that follow, each of the two bases is foreclosed. 

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).

Rivera concedes his first basis, that his Texas offense encompasses a 

broader range of conduct than Guideline § 2L1.2 contemplates, is foreclosed by 

United States v. Teran-Salas, in which our court held the Texas offense of 

possession, with intent to deliver, cocaine was a drug-trafficking offense under 

Guideline § 2L1.2 and an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). 767 F.3d 

453, 461 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). He presents this 

issue only to preserve it for possible further review. 

For his second basis, Rivera maintains his prior Texas crime was not a 

“drug trafficking offense” because Texas law does not require proof of 

remuneration or commercial activity in order to obtain a conviction for 

possession, with intent to deliver, a controlled substance. Recently, however, 

in United States v. Martinez-Lugo, our court held an enhancement under 

Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) for a prior conviction of a drug-trafficking offense 

is warranted regardless of whether the conviction for the prior offense required 

 Case: 14-40763 Document: 00513151206 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2015
No. 14-40763

3

remuneration. 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (19 June 

2015) (No. 14-10355). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-40763 Document: 00513151206 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/12/2015