United States v. Paulino Jaquez-Torres ( 2011 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 10-1879
__________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PAULINO A. JAQUEZ-TORRES,
Also known as Wilbert Batista
Paulino A. Jaquez-Torres,
Appellant
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 1-08-cr-00242-001)
District Judge: Hon. R. Barclay Surrick
__________
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 21, 2011
Before: HARDIMAN and ALIDSERT, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Int’l Trade Judge.
(Filed June 22, 2011)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
*
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade,
sitting by designation.
1
Appellant Paulino Jaquez Torres raises a single issue for our review: did the
District Court err in imposing two criminal history points for his previous contempt of
court conviction? We determine it did not and will affirm.1
The parties are familiar with the facts and the proceedings in the District Court, so
we will not revisit them here.
Jaquez Torres presents two arguments in support of his assertion that the District
Court erroneously imposed two criminal history points. He first contends that there was
insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that he had been convicted for contempt of
court. This claim is without merit. The Probation Officer and the District Court relied on
a municipal court docket entry that reflected the date of conviction, the court term and
number, and the exact sentence imposed. Indeed, Jaquez Torres’s trial counsel
corroborated the existence of the previous conviction, stating: “Mr. Savino from my
office represented this gentleman . . . and certainly did a good job in reducing what could
have been a five month and 29 day sentence to a two month sentence, in effect. But at
any rate, this defendant was given a criminal conviction for a contempt of court . . . .”
App. 37a (Sentencing Tr.). We therefore have no trouble concluding that “sufficient
indicia of reliability,” United States v. Leekins, 493 F.3d 143, 149 (3d Cir. 2007)
(quotations and citations omitted), supported the existence of a previous contempt of
court conviction.
1
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
Jaquez Torres also contends that the Court erred in imposing two criminal history
points for the contempt of court conviction. We disagree. The Sentencing Guidelines
state that contempt of court convictions are to be counted if the sentence was a term of
imprisonment of at least 30 days. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). Because Jaquez Torres
received a sentence of 2 months and 28 days to 5 months and 29 days’ imprisonment, the
conviction counted for purposes of calculating his criminal history score. The Guidelines
instruct courts to add two points for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least 60
days. Id. § 4A1.1(b). The District Court therefore properly added two points to Jaquez
Torres’s criminal history score.
*****
We have considered all of the arguments advanced by the parties and conclude
that no further discussion is necessary. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3