Court Opinion

ID: 9369899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 01:00:29.164241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.027157
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-50807         Document: 00516640334             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/09/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 21-50807
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               February 9, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Alex Estuardo Ixcopal-Hernandez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-249-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Alex Estuardo Ixcopal-Hernandez appeals his conviction for illegal
   reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). He argues that his judgment
   should reflect a conviction pursuant to § 1326(b)(1) because his predicate
   offense, a prior California conviction for possession of a controlled substance

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-50807       Document: 00516640334          Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                     No. 21-50807

   for sale, was not properly classified as an aggravated felony such that it would
   support a conviction under § 1326(b)(2).
            Because Ixcopal-Hernandez did not object to the entry of a conviction
   under § 1326(b)(2), we review for plain error only. See United States v.
   Trujillo, 4 F.4th. 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 837 (2022).
   As an initial matter, although Ixcopal-Hernandez has been released from
   prison and may have already been removed from the United States, this
   appeal is not moot because his conviction under § 1326(b)(2) has continuing
   collateral consequences. See United States v. Vega, 960 F.3d 669, 673 (5th
   Cir. 2020); United States v. Tzacir-Garcia, 928 F.3d 448, 450 & n.3 (5th Cir.
   2019).
            Courts employ a categorical approach to determine whether a state
   offense qualifies as an aggravated felony. Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184,
   190 (2013); Vega, 960 F.3d at 675. We have determined that a conviction
   pursuant to California Health and Safety Code § 11378 is not categorically an
   aggravated felony. See United States v. Castellon-Aragon, 772 F.3d 1023,
   1024-26 (5th Cir. 2014).       Under the modified categorical approach, a
   conviction would constitute an aggravated felony only if documents, such as
   the charging document or plea agreement, establish that the defendant’s
   conviction was based on a substance prohibited under the Controlled
   Substances Act (CSA). See United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787,
   792, 794-96 (5th Cir. 2015).
            Ixcopal-Hernandez argues that the record did not contain any
   approved documents from which the district court could have determined
   that his conviction under § 11378 involved a substance prohibited under the
   CSA. He is correct. However, the Government has supplemented the
   record on appeal. Among the documents submitted by the Government was
   a felony complaint charging Ixcopal-Hernandez with a violation of California

                                          2
Case: 21-50807        Document: 00516640334        Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                    No. 21-50807

   Health and Safety Code § 11378, asserting that he unlawfully possessed
   methamphetamine for the purpose of a sale.
          Because the felony complaint served as the charging document, the
   complaint is an approved source to establish the fact of a prior conviction
   under the modified categorical approach. See Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d at
   794-96. Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in concluding that
   Ixcopal-Hernandez’s prior California conviction of possession for sale of a
   controlled substance was an aggravated felony. See Castellon-Aragon, 772
   F.3d at 1024-26.

          The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                         3