United States v. Dominguez-Resendiz

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 4, 2022
• Docket: 21-51201
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-51201 Document: 00516535134 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 21-51201 consolidated with FILED No. 21-51202 November 4, 2022 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Carlos Dominguez-Resendiz,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-780-1 USDC No. 4:21-CR-838-1

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-51201 Document: 00516535134 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2022

No. 21-51201 c/w No. 21-51202

Carlos Dominguez-Resendiz appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, as well as the revocation of supervised release arising from a prior conviction and the imposition of a revocation sentence. However, because Dominguez-Resendiz has failed to raise any challenge to his supervised release revocation and resulting sentence, he has abandoned those issues on appeal. See United States v. Pinon-Saldana, 44 F.4th 264, 266 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022). In the sole issue on appeal, Dominguez-Resendiz contends that the district court erred by using a 2009 Colorado conviction to enhance his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) because he was 17 years old when sentenced to Colorado’s Youthful Offender System. We review whether the Guidelines apply to Dominguez-Resendiz’s prior conviction de novo. See United States v. Eustice, 952 F.3d 686, 692 (5th Cir. 2020). After considering the state court sentencing records and the parties’ arguments, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in concluding that Dominguez-Resendiz’s 2009 Colorado conviction was an adult conviction warranting the enhancement. See People v. Miller, 25 P.3d 1230, 1231-32 (Colo. 2001); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-407(1)(d) (2009); § 2L1.2, comment. (n.1(B)). AFFIRMED.