United States v. Dominguez ( 2022 )

Case: 21-50442 Document: 00516189707 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 2, 2022
No. 21-50442
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Carlos Alfonso Dominguez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CR-2348-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges
Per Curiam:*
Carlos Alfonso Dominguez pleaded guilty to one count of importation
of 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and one count of possession with
intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. He challenges
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50442 Document: 00516189707 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2022
No. 21-50442
the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his within-guidelines
sentence of 63 months of imprisonment.
We review sentencing decisions for reasonableness using a
“bifurcated review process.” United States v. Nguyen, 854 F.3d 276, 280 (5th
Cir. 2017); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). First, we
“examine whether the district court committed any significant procedural
error.” Nguyen, 854 F.3d at 280. “If the district court’s decision is
procedurally sound, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence.” Id. Dominguez’s arguments at sentencing alerted the district
court to, and so preserved for appeal, his claims of procedural and substantive
error. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 764, 766-67
(2020). We therefore review the district court’s interpretation of the safety-
valve provisions de novo and the decision whether to apply a safety-valve
adjustment for clear error. United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 145 (5th
Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Towns, 718 F.3d 404, 412 (5th Cir. 2013).
Despite Dominguez’s arguments to the contrary, the record reflects
that the district court applied safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to
sentence him below the 120-month mandatory minimum and correctly
calculated the applicable guidelines range of 63 to 78 months of
imprisonment. Additionally, there is no merit to his claim of substantive
unreasonableness. A within-guidelines sentence is presumptively
reasonable. United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017).
There is no indication that an important factor was overlooked, that an
improper factor was given significant weight, or that the court failed to
provide any required explanation. Instead, Dominguez’s argument is no
more than a request for us to reweigh the statutory sentencing factors, which
we will not do. Id. at 167; see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2