Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ARMANDO GARCIA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Armando Garcia-Garcia pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), and the district court varied below the advisory guidelines range and sentenced him to 41 months in prison. Although Garcia-Garcia challenged in the district court the application of a 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) (2014) based on his prior Texas drug conviction, he raises a new argument on appeal.
Garcia-Garcia argues that his prior conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance under Texas Health & Safety Code Annotated § 481.112(a) does not qualify as an enumerated crime of violence, a “drug trafficking offense” as defined in § 2L1.2, comment. (n.(1)(b)(iv)) (2014). Although Garcia-Garcia asserts that United States v. Ford, 509 F.3d 714, 717-18 (5th Cir. 2007), is not controlling, he believes that he cannot show plain error because this court has not yet limited Ford. He raises the issue to preserve review and argues that, because the error affects his substantial rights, this court should exercise discretion to reverse the error.
Because this issue is raised for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Neither this court nor the Supreme Court has addressed this issue, which is subject to reasonable dispute. A claim subject to reasonable dispute cannot succeed on plain error review. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 799, 802 (5th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM:*
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 15-10876
Decided: January 12, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)