USA V. LUIS DOMINGUEZ-RIVERA, No. 12-10076 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 31 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-10076 D.C. No. 4:04-cr-00221-DCB v. MEMORANDUM * LUIS ANGEL DOMINGUEZ-RIVERA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding ** Submitted December 19, 2012 *** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Luis Angel Dominguez-Rivera appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Dominguez-Rivera contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Dominguez-Rivera first contends that the court punished him twice for violating the terms of supervised release imposed in 2004. This contention is belied by the record. The current 18-month sentence was imposed after Dominguez-Rivera committed a new offense that violated the terms of supervised release imposed in 2009. Dominguez-Rivera also contends that the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was imposed to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for his 8 U.S.C. § 1326 conviction. In light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, especially Dominguez-Rivera s breach of the court s trust, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). To the extent Dominguez-Rivera argues that the maximum term of imprisonment must be reduced under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) by the length of any previous terms of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release, this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Knight, 580 F.3d 933, 937-38 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 12-10076
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.
