USA v. Domingo Rodriguez-Noyola, No. 12-11281 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 2, 2014.
Download PDF
Case: 12-11281 Document: 00512486598 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 12-11281 Summary Calendar FILED January 2, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 12-11281 Document: 00512486598 Page: 2 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
