USA v. Alfredo Navarrete-Jizcano, No. 14-50814 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 6, 2015.
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 14-50814 Summary Calendar November 6, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ALFREDO JOSE NAVARRETE-JIZCANO, also known as Jose Alfredo Navarrete-Vizcaino, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CR-639-1 Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alfredo Jose Navarrete-Jizcano appeals his 37-month within-guidelines sentence that was imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. He challenges the district court’s application of the 12-level enhancement set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). For the first time on appeal, he argues that his 1994 Kansas conviction for felony sale of marijuana 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * No. 14-50814 does not constitute a “drug trafficking offense” for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) because the conviction could be obtained without proof of remuneration and without proof of a specific amount of marijuana. Citing to Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013), he asserts that, because the Kansas statute did not require this evidence, the offense would not qualify as a felony under federal law. Because he did not object on this ground in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Moreno-Florean, 542 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2008). The Government has moved for summary affirmance on the ground that the sole issue raised by Navarrete-Jizcano is foreclosed. In his response to the Government’s motion, Navarrete-Jizcano argues for the first time that his conviction is not a drug trafficking offense for purposes of § 2L1.2 because he was convicted of sale of marijuana rather than possession with the intent to distribute marijuana and that his conviction did not require evidence that he possessed the drug. Navarrete-Jizcano’s arguments challenging the application of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) are foreclosed by United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2015). Section 2L1.2 does not require that a drug trafficking offense qualify as a felony under federal law; rather, the focus of the Guideline is “both on the length of the sentence and whether the conviction was a felony under state law.” Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d at 204. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government’s alternative motion to extend the time to file its brief is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
