USA v. Henry Calix

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-50176 Affirmed ] Judge: WED , Judge: EHJ , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 07/07/2015 for Appellant Henry Alexander Calix; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Appellee USA [7749412-2]; denying motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Appellee USA [7749412-3] [14-50176]

Case: 14-50176

Document: 00513080167

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/16/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-50176
Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
June 16, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
HENRY ALEXANDER CALIX, also known as Ales Calis Gonzalez, also known
as Hector Omar Calix, also known as Jorge Rafael Hernandez, also known as
Jose Luis Godinez, also known as Henry Alexannder Calix, also known as
Henry M. Calix, also known as Jose Bustillo, also known as Aleljandro Cadena,
also known as Alex Calis-Gonzalez, also known as Alexander Calix,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:13-CR-471-1
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Henry Alexander Calix 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 Teran-Salas, we

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-50176

Document: 00513080167

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/16/2015

No. 14-50176
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 would not
qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 458.
Calix 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