USA v. Jose Dominguez-Alfaro
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-40859 Affirmed] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JLW, Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 03/08/2017 for Appellant Jose Francisco Dominguez-Alfaro [16-40859]
Date Filed: 02/15/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
February 15, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JOSE FRANCISCO DOMINGUEZ-ALFARO,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:15-CR-1098-1
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jose Francisco Dominguez-Alfaro appeals his within-guidelines sentence
of 50 months of imprisonment imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of
illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
(b)(2). According to Dominguez-Alfaro, the district court committed procedural
error by failing to recognize that it had the authority to grant his motion for a
downward variance, based on then pending amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 02/15/2017
In reviewing Dominguez-Alfaro’s unpreserved claim of procedural error
we consider first whether the district court erred, whether the error was clear
or obvious, and whether the error affected Dominguez-Alfaro’s substantial
rights. See United States v. Narez-Garcia, 819 F.3d 146, 150 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 137 S. Ct. 175 (2016). If we find in the affirmative as to the these three
factors, then we have the discretion to correct the error, but will only exercise
our discretion “if the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quoting Puckett v. United States, 556
U.S. 129, 135 (2009)).
According to Dominguez-Alfaro, the district court’s statement that it
“should sentence pursuant to the Guidelines in existence of as of the date [of]
sentencing,” shows that the district court believed it lacked the discretion to
sentence him below the guideline range.
The district court, however,
additionally considered the particular facts of his case, the arguments he
presented in favor of a downward variance, the advisory guidelines range, and
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See § 3553(a); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 49-51 (2007). Moreover, the district court specifically noted that it was
applying the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 as modified by United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which rendered the Guidelines advisory only.
Dominguez-Alfaro has failed to show that that the district court committed
reversible plain error. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Narez-Garcia, 819 F.3d at 150.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?