Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose De La Cruz SAENZ-ARANDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-16
Citations: 607 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 14-50517
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose De La Cruz SAENZ-ARANDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose De La Cruz SAENZ-ARANDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50517.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 2015.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Laura G. Greenberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose De La Cruz Saenz-Aranda raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1892, 191 L.Ed.2d 767 (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 qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Terartr-Salas, 767 F.3d at 458. Saenz-Aranda 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. Accordingly, the Government's, 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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.