USA v. Henry Calix


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

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?