Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Domingo RODRIGUEZ-NOYOLA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-02
Citations: 551 F. App'x 117
Docket Number: No. 12-11281
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Domingo RODRIGUEZ-NOYOLA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Domingo RODRIGUEZ-NOYOLA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-11281
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 2, 2014.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Reynaldo Antonio De Los Santos, De Los Santos & Associates, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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 Rodriguez-Noyola to 210 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.
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). Rodriguez-Noyola 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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.