USA v. Jose De La Cruz-Gutierrez
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-41255 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: CH , Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 08/05/2015 for Appellant Jose Manuel De La Cruz-Gutierrez [13-41255]
Date Filed: 07/15/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
July 15, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
JOSE MANUEL DE LA CRUZ-GUTIERREZ, also known as Victor Taveras,
also known as Jose Manuel Taveras De La Cruz-Gutierrez,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:13-CR-1247-1
Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jose Manuel De La Cruz-Gutierrez (De La Cruz) appeals the 46-month
sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea to being an alien
illegally present in the United States following deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)
and (b). He contends that the district court erroneously applied a 16-level
enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on his prior
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 07/15/2015
Pennsylvania conviction of manufacturing, delivering, or possessing with the
intent to manufacture or deliver cocaine.
De La Cruz first argues that the Pennsylvania statutory provision under
which he was convicted does not constitute a “drug trafficking offense” under
§ 2L1.2 because it criminalizes the distribution of cocaine without
remuneration. We recently rejected the same argument in United States v.
Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015).
De La Cruz also argues that Pennsylvania delivery does not qualify as a
§ 2L1.2 drug trafficking offense because a conviction under the state statute
could rest upon administering a narcotic, an act not included in the Guidelines
offense. In United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2014),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015), we required “a realistic probability, not a
theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that
falls outside the generic definition of a crime.” De La Cruz argues only that
the available state documents do not preclude the possibility that his
conviction was for administering or possessing with the intent to administer.
He presents no situation in a case or his own case in which Pennsylvania courts
have construed the Pennsylvania statute in such a way. As in Teran-Salas,
this theoretical possibility is insufficient to show error in the application of the
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement. See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 460.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?