Edgar Vasquez v. U.S. Parole Commission
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60551 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: CH , Judge: SAH Mandate issue date is 06/01/2018 [16-60551]
Case: 16-60551
Document: 00514421765
Page: 1
Date Filed: 04/09/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-60551
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 9, 2018
EDGAR VASQUEZ,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondent
Appeal from the Determination of the
United States Parole Commission
USPC No. 18 USC 4106A
Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*
In 2012, a court in Mexico convicted Edgar Vasquez of aggravated kidnapping—with an enhancement for carrying out the crime with violence—and
imposed a 20-year sentence. Vasquez was later transferred to the United
States under a treaty. See Treaty on the Execution of Penal Sentences, U.S.Mex., Nov. 25, 1976, 28 U.S.T. 7399 (entered into force Nov. 30, 1977). The U.S.
Parole Commission then calculated Vasquez’s release date and supervised-release conditions as if Vasquez had been convicted of federal kidnapping in 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-60551
Document: 00514421765
Page: 2
Date Filed: 04/09/2018
No. 16-60551
United States district court. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201, 4106A. This appeal raises
a single issue: whether the Parole Commission plainly erred by employing a
two-level, dangerous-weapon enhancement to calculate Vasquez’s advisory
guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(b)(3) (2014). Viewing the entire record,
and with the benefit of oral argument, we are not persuaded that the Parole
Commission committed “clear or obvious” error. Molina-Martinez v. United
States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016). We therefore AFFIRM.
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?