USA v. Paula Dominguez-Garcia
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-40964 Vacated in Part and Remanded] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JLW, Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 05/03/2017 for Appellant Paula Dominguez-Garcia [16-40964]
Date Filed: 04/12/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
April 12, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:09-CR-760-1
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Paula Dominguez-Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following the
revocation of her probation.
Specifically, she contests the imposition or
reimposition of a $100 special assessment. She asserts that she was relieved
of that obligation because more than five years elapsed since the date of the
underlying judgment, and the court otherwise had no statutory authority to
impose or reimpose the assessment. The Government agrees that the court
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 04/12/2017
exceeded its authority and that the written judgment should be reformed to
strike the special assessment.
Although a special assessment is a mandatory component of a sentence,
see 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A), the obligation to pay it “ceases five years after
the date of the judgment,” § 3013(c). More than five years elapsed between the
initial imposition of the special assessment and the revocation of probation.
Because neither § 3013 nor 18 U.S.C. § 3565 sanctions the imposition of a
special assessment for revocation of a term of probation, the court lacked
authority to impose or reimpose a special assessment. See United States v.
Carlos Pineda, 594 F.3d 892, 893 (5th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, we VACATE in part and REMAND for amendment of the
judgment consistent with this opinion.
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?