USA v. Luis Oyuela-Baquedano

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-50077 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: EHJ , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 07/07/2015 for Appellant Luis Alfonso Oyuela-Baquedano; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [7757822-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [7757822-3] [14-50077]

Case: 14-50077

Document: 00513080142

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/16/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-50077
Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
June 16, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
LUIS ALFONSO OYUELA-BAQUEDANO, also known as Luis Alonzo OyuelaBaquedano,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:13-CR-541-1
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Luis Alfonso OyuelaBaquedano raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. TeranSalas, 767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (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

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-50077

Document: 00513080142

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/16/2015

No. 14-50077
could be convicted under Texas Health and Safety Code § 481.112(a) for
conduct that would not qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See TeranSalas, 767 F.3d at 458. Oyuela-Baquedano 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