
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Henry Alexander CALIX, also known as Ales Calis Gonzalez, also known as Hector Omar Calix, also known as Jorge Rafael Hernandez, also known as Jose Luis Godinez, also known as Henry Alexannder Calix, also known as Henry M. Calix, also known as Jose Bustillo, also known as Aleljandro Cadena, also known as Alex Calis-Gonzalez, also known as Alexander Calix, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50176
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 16, 2015.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Mara Asya Blatt, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Henry Alexander Calix, Pecos, TX, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Henry Alexander Calix raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1892, 191 L.Ed.2d 767 (2015). In Teran-Salas, we determined that the appellant was not entitled to relief based merely on the existence of a theoretical possibility that the defendant could be convicted under Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that would not qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 458. Calix has not demonstrated “a realistic probability that Texas would prosecute under an ‘administering’ theory in a way that does not also constitute either ‘dispensing or ‘distributing’ under the federal sentencing guidelines.” Id. at 461-62. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     