United States v. Edwardo Rodriguez

647 F. App'x 436
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided May 3, 2016·No. 15-50491·Unpublished

Opinion

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)(l)(A).

Because Rodriguez did not object in the district court, we review his claim for plain error. United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 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, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). As Rodriguez acknowledges, he cannot show plain error. See Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d at 274.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Edwardo Rodriguez, 647 F. App'x 436 (5th Cir. 2016).

647 F. App'x 436 (United States v. Edwardo Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez
268 F.3d 272 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)
Puckett v. United States
556 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court, 2009)