USA v. Edwardo Rodriguez, No. 15-50491 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 15-50491 Document: 00513490884 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 15-50491 Summary Calendar May 3, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDWARDO SALVADOR RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:14-CR-731-1 Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Edwardo Salvador Rodriguez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, and the district court sentenced him to 250 months of imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Rodriguez argues that the district court erred by failing to verify at the sentencing hearing that he had read the presentence report, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-50491 Document: 00513490884 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2016 No. 15-50491 Because Rodriguez did not object in the district court, we review his claim for plain error. United States v. Esparza-Gonzales, 268 F.3d 272, 274 (5th Cir. 2001). To show plain error, Rodriguez must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). As Rodriguez acknowledges, he cannot show plain error. See Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d at 274. 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.