Edgar Vasquez v. U.S. Parole Commission


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60551 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: CH , Judge: SAH Mandate issue date is 06/01/2018 [16-60551]

Download PDF
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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?