695 F. App'x 767
5th Cir.2017Background
- Jimenez-Ibarra, a Mexican citizen, pled guilty in 2006 to Texas Health & Safety Code §481.112(a) (possession with intent to deliver a PG-1 substance) and received a 60-day sentence.
- He was deported in 2006 and later located in Texas in 2013 following a separate arrest for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; he was convicted and sentenced to three years, then paroled in 2015 and transferred to federal custody.
- In March 2016, he pled guilty in federal court to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. §1326(a)-(b); the district court applied a 12-level enhancement under §2L1.2(b)(1)(B) based on the Texas felony drug offense, as described in the PSR.
- The PSR classified the prior Texas conviction as a drug-trafficking offense, resulting in a total offense level of 17 and an advisory range of 30–37 months; Jimenez-Ibarra requested a downward variance, and the court imposed 27 months’ imprisonment plus three years of supervised release.
- Jimenez-Ibarra appeals, arguing the Texas conviction does not categorically qualify as a drug-trafficking offense and that the district court relied on a potentially overbroad statute; the Government argues otherwise and the court ultimately affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Texas conviction qualifies as a drug-trafficking offense | Jimenez-Ibarra argues the statute includes position isomers not covered by the CSA | Jimenez-Ibarra contends the Texas statute is overbroad and not a valid predicate | No plain error; conviction can be a valid predicate under unsettled law |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 799 (5th Cir. 2015) (plain-error review requires clear or obvious error not shown here)
- United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 2014) (realistic probability of applying Texas statute to CSU conduct)
- United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2015) (divisible California statute; required modified-categorical approach)
- United States v. Chung, 261 F.3d 536 (5th Cir. 2001) (questions of fact resolvable by court are not plain error)
- United States v. Ellis, 564 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review requires clear error; not met here)