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UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

Download PDF
Case: 16-40964 Document: 00513949963 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-40964 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 12, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PAULA DOMINGUEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 16-40964 Document: 00513949963 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2017 No. 16-40964 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. 2

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?