Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-12-11281/USCOURTS-ca5-12-11281-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Domingo Rodriguez-Noyola
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11281

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DOMINGO RODRIGUEZ-NOYOLA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-148-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Domingo Rodriguez-Noyola appeals from the sentence imposed following 

his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled 

substance. After declining to decrease his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility, the district court sentenced RodriguezNoyola to 210 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.

* 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

January 2, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 12-11281 Document: 00512486598 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2014
No. 12-11281

On appeal, Rodriguez-Noyola argues that the district court erred by 

concluding that he did not warrant the adjustment for acceptance of 

responsibility because he frivolously challenged relevant conduct in his 

objections to the presentence report. Because he did not object on this basis 

while before the district court, we review this issue for plain error. See United 

States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 647 (5th Cir. 2003). RodriguezNoyola has not shown that the district court plainly erred in determining that 

his objections to the PSR were frivolous. The district court therefore did not 

err by concluding that he acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of 

responsibility by frivolously challenging relevant conduct that the district 

court determined to be true. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n.1(A).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-11281 Document: 00512486598 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2014