United States v. Andres Sanchez-Medina

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 FILED
Summary Calendar 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, within-
guidelines 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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