USA v. Andres Sanchez-Medina, No. 13-40923 (5th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-40923 Document: 00513121907 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/20/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-40923 Summary Calendar FILED July 20, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ANDRES SANCHEZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:13-CR-286 Before WIENER, HIGGINSON and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Andres Sanchez-Medina (Sanchez) appeals the 41-month, withinguidelines sentence imposed by the district court. He argues that the district court erred by imposing an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based upon the California felony complaint and abstract of judgment evidencing his prior conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11378. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-40923 Document: 00513121907 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/20/2015 No. 13-40923 This court reviews the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 791 (5th Cir. 2015). Because Sanchez’s conviction under § 11378 is not categorically a “drug trafficking offense” for purposes of § 2L1.2, we must employ the modified categorical approach to determine whether his prior conviction warranted the enhancement. See id. at 793-94 (adopting the reasoning of United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 687 (9th Cir. 2012)). The district court was entitled to rely upon the charging document for the § 11378 offense to determine whether it constituted a drug trafficking offense. See Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005). Sanchez does not deny that the felony complaint, which charged him with possessing methamphetamine for sale, is the final charging document; because nothing in the record affirmatively casts doubt upon, or creates ambiguity regarding, whether the felony complaint constitutes the charging document, the district court did not clearly err in finding that it did. See Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d at 795-96. 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.