Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50703/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50703-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Manuel Dominguez-Godinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50703

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR MANUEL DOMINGUEZ-GODINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-890

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Manuel Dominguez-Godinez appeals the within-guidelines, 46-

month sentence imposed for his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry. He 

contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable and greater than 

necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse 

of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Dominguez-

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50703 Document: 00512951872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2015
No. 14-50703

Godinez’s arguments fail to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we 

apply to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 

173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 

338 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court, who was “in a superior position to find 

facts and judge their import under § 3553(a),” was presented with DominguezGodinez’s mitigating arguments but concluded that a sentence within the 

guidelines range was appropriate. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 339. As 

Dominguez-Godinez concedes, his argument that the presumption of 

reasonableness should not be applied to his sentence because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 

lacks an empirical basis is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 

528, 530-31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 

357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-50703 Document: 00512951872 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2015