USA v. Victor Dominguez-Godinez, No. 14-50703 (5th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-50703 Document: 00512951872 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-50703 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 27, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk 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, 46month 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 14-50703 Document: 00512951872 Page: 2 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

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.