United States v. Domio
This text of United States v. Domio (United States v. Domio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40687 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEVIN DEVON DOMIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CR-120-1 - - - - - - - - - -
April 10, 1998
Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Devin Devon Domio appeals his sentence in his guilty-plea
conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled
substance. He contends that the information in the PSR was
unreliable and that the PSR relied on multiple hearsay.
Domio bears the burden of proving that the information in
the PSR is inaccurate or unreliable. United States v. Angulo,
927 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir. 1991). If hearsay evidence has
sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 97-40687 -2-
accuracy, a district court may consider it when making sentencing
decisions. United States v. Billingsley, 978 F.2d 861, 866 (5th
Cir. 1992). Domio admitted his conduct in selling crack cocaine
to his customers every 7 to 10 days. These customers included
various persons who in turn informed the confidential informant
that the source of their crack cocaine was Domio. Thus, the
hearsay and the PSR had a sufficient indicia of reliability. See
United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 943 (5th Cir. 1994).
Further, Domio has submitted no evidence to contradict the
information in the PSR. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence,
the district court was not clearly erroneous in relying on the
PSR, even if the PSR relied on hearsay. See United States v.
Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in
calculating Domio’s relevant conduct. See United States v.
Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Domio, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-domio-ca5-1998.