United States v. Hugo Dominguez-Rodriguez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50240 · 2010-03-09 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hugo DOMINGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Gould, Smith

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50240 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-CR-01972-JM v. MEMORANDUM * HUGO DOMINGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 16, 2010 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Hugo Dominguez-Rodriguez appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

DAT/Research and we affirm.

Dominguez-Rodriguez contends that the district court erred by determining that the Government’s substantial assistance motion was the sole permissible basis for a variance or departure below the mandatory minimum. He asserts that the district court was not bound by the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) because United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory. These contentions are foreclosed. See United States v. Jackson, 577 F.3d 1032, 1035-36 n.1 (9th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Auld, 321 F.3d 861, 867 (9th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.

DAT/Research 2 09-50240