USA v. Ricardo Dominguez-Ollarsoval

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-51302 Affirmed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JLD , Judge: ECP. Mandate pull date is 08/28/2015 for Appellant Ricardo Dominguez-Ollarsoval [14-51302]

Case: 14-51302

Document: 00513146396

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/07/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-51302
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 7, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
RICARDO DOMINGUEZ-OLLARSOVAL,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:14-CR-446-1
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Ricardo Dominguez-Ollarsoval (Dominguez) challenges the 24-month
term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal
reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the non-guideline
sentence, which is above the advisory guidelines range of 10 to 16 months, is
unreasonable and greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-51302

Document: 00513146396

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/07/2015

No. 14-51302
Where, as in the instant proceeding, there is no procedural error, this
court reviews the sentence for substantive reasonableness under the abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United
States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). The specific
characterization of the sentence is irrelevant as long as the sentence is
reasonable under the totality of the relevant factors in § 3553(a). See United
States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2008).
In Dominguez’s case, the district court’s reasons for the sentence were
fact-specific and consistent with the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United
States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). Although Dominguez argues
that the district court placed undue weight on his criminal history, a district
court may consider a defendant’s criminal history when imposing a nonguidelines sentence. See Smith, 440 F.3d at 709; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4 (2013).
Additionally, while Dominguez contends that the district court failed to
properly consider his personal circumstances, there is no requirement that a
sentencing court accord personal circumstances dispositive weight. See United
States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 2008). Finally, this court
has upheld upward departures or variances of similar or greater magnitudes.
See United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433, 442 (5th Cir. 2006); United States
v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Daughenbaugh,
49 F.3d 171, 174-75 (5th Cir. 1995).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2