United States v. Hector Dominguez-Gabriel

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: September 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-1335
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

No. 24-1335 _______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

HECTOR DOMINGUEZ-GABRIEL, Appellant _______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:23-cr-00388-001) District Judge: Hon. R. Barclay Surrick _______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on September 19, 2025

Before: BIBAS, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Filed: September 22, 2205 ) _______________

OPINION* _______________

BIBAS, Circuit Judge.

Hector Dominguez-Gabriel pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms of

cocaine. He and the government stipulated to a prison sentence of ten years, the statutory

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding precedent. minimum. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. The District

Court accepted the guilty plea and imposed the stipulated sentence. Dominguez-Gabriel

now appeals.

Dominguez-Gabriel’s court-appointed lawyer has asked to withdraw from this appeal

because there are no non-frivolous issues. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2(a) (citing Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)). Dominguez-Gabriel did not file his own brief. We see

no non-frivolous issues in the briefs or record.

On an Anders motion, we first decide whether counsel thoroughly reviewed the record

and explained why there are no non-frivolous appealable issues. United States v. Langley,

52 F.4th 564, 574 (3d Cir. 2022). He has. Counsel canvassed the record and identified a

potential issue with the District Court’s time-served credit calculation under

18 U.S.C. § 3585. But that issue is frivolous: Dominguez-Gabriel cannot get credit for time

served in Pennsylvania before this sentence because he was already imprisoned for a dif-

ferent offense. See § 3585(b). Counsel has further noted that the District Court accepted the

plea agreement and opted to run Dominguez-Gabriel’s sentences concurrently.

Second, we review the record independently for any non-frivolous issues. United States

v. Brookins, 132 F.4th 659, 666 (3d Cir. 2025); Anders, 386 U.S. at 742. We find none.

The District Court ensured that Dominguez-Gabriel’s plea was knowing and voluntary. See

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)–(2); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969); Brady v.

United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755–56 (1970). He was advised of various procedural rights

and acknowledged that he was waiving them, including (under the appeal waiver) his right

to appeal most issues. He was told the statutory maximum and minimum penalties. He

2 admitted to an adequate factual basis for the crime. The District Court reasonably imposed

the stipulated, statutory-minimum sentence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i); Boykin, 395 U.S.

at 242.

Plus, Dominguez-Gabriel waived his right to appeal, with a few conditions. Nothing

indicates that any of those conditions are met: His stipulated sentence was below the Guide-

lines range, and there is no sign his counsel’s performance fell below what the Sixth

Amendment requires. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). Indeed,

Dominguez-Gabriel said he was pleased with his lawyer.

We see no colorable issues with Dominguez-Gabriel’s plea or sentence. So we will

grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the District Court’s judgment.