USA v. Medardo Hernandez-Mejia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-50886 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: EHJ , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 07/07/2015 for Appellant Medardo Hernandez-Mejia; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [7738186-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [7738186-3] [13-50886]

Case: 13-50886

Document: 00513079078

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/16/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-50886
Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
June 16, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
MEDARDO HERNANDEZ-MEJIA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:13-CR-256-1
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Medardo Hernandez-Mejia
raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d
453, 458-62 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). In TeranSalas, 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

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 13-50886

Document: 00513079078

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/16/2015

No. 13-50886
would not qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Teran-Salas, 767
F.3d at 458. Hernandez-Mejia 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.

2