USA v. Enrique Avellaneda-Jaime

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-20286 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 03/04/2015 for Appellant Enrique Avellaneda-Jaimes [14-20286]

Case: 14-20286

Document: 00512934783

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/11/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-20286
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
February 11, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
ENRIQUE AVELLANEDA-JAIMES, also known as Jaimes Enrique
Avellaneda, also known as Enrique Avellaneda Jaimes, also known as Enrique
Avellaneda, also known as Enrique Jaimes Avellaneda, also known as Enrique
Avella,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:14-CR-28-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Enrique Avellaneda-Jaimes (Avellaneda) pleaded guilty to illegal
reentry following deportation. In determining the sentence, the district court
increased Avellaneda’s offense level by eight levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-20286

Document: 00512934783

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/11/2015

No. 14-20286
§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), because he was convicted prior to his deportation of an
aggravated felony, that is, the Texas offense of felony theft.
Avellaneda argues that the record does not establish the subsection of
Texas’s theft statute that he was convicted of violating, and that the state’s
theft statute encompasses conduct broader than the generic contemporary
definition of theft because it criminalizes the appropriation of property that
has been induced by fraud or deception. He concedes, however, that this issue
is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar, 768
F.3d 437, 438 (5th Cir. 2014), which was decided during the pendency of this
appeal, and he states that he wishes to preserve the issue for further review
by the Supreme Court.
AFFIRMED.

2