United States v. Marcos Dominguez ( 2020 )

Case: 19-10819 Document: 00515375705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 19-10819
FILED
April 8, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MARCOS GERALDO DOMINGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-41-3
Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Marcos Geraldo Dominguez appeals the sentence imposed following his
guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500
grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine. He contends that
his 151-month sentence, which was at the bottom of the applicable guidelines
range, is substantively unreasonable because the district court focused only on
his criminal history.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-10819 Document: 00515375705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2020
No. 19-10819
We review a district court’s sentencing decision for reasonableness,
under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly
calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v.
Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). “The presumption is
rebutted only upon a showing that the sentence does not account for a factor
that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an
irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in
balancing sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th
Cir. 2009).
A defendant’s criminal history is a proper factor for consideration at
sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (requiring consideration of the
defendant’s “history and characteristics”). Thus, the district court’s
consideration of Dominguez’s criminal history did not amount to affording
significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at
186. The fact that Dominguez had only a limited criminal history was a part
of the guidelines calculations, and this fact was discussed by the district court
at sentencing. The district court also heard Dominguez’s allocution and
counsel’s arguments in mitigation, and it stated it had considered both the
guidelines range and the § 3553(a) factors. The district court was in the best
position to evaluate all the evidence, as well as the need for the sentence to
further the other objectives set forth in § 3553(a), and its decision is entitled to
deference. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Mere disagreement with the propriety of
a within-guidelines sentence does not rebut the presumption that the sentence
was reasonable. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2