Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel TORRES-SALAS, 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 416
Docket Number: No. 14-41383
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel TORRES-SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 416–417

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joel TORRES-SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41383
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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, — 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 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)(l)(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.
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.