United States v. Rodriguez-Gutierrez

428 F.3d 201, 119 F. App'x 681, 2005 WL 2447908
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 20, 2005
Docket04-30451
StatusUnpublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 428 F.3d 201 (United States v. Rodriguez-Gutierrez) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Rodriguez-Gutierrez, 428 F.3d 201, 119 F. App'x 681, 2005 WL 2447908 (5th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Luis Alonso Rodriguez-Gutierrez (“Rodriguez”) appeals from his sentence following a guilty plea to illegal re-entry following deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). The district court ordered that the sentence run consecutive to an anticipated but not yet imposed sentence for revocation of supervised release. Rodriguez argues that the district court lacked authority to order a consecutive sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a).

Although the Government argues that the case is moot because the revocation sentence was ordered to run consecutive to the sentence challenged here, we are not convinced that we cannot even theoretically grant relief. See Vieux Carre Property Owners v. Brown, 948 F.2d 1436, 1446 (5th Cir.1991). We ordinarily review a district court’s decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Lynch, 378 F.3d 445, 447 (5th Cir.2004). Because Rodriguez did not object to the consecutive sentence in the district court, however, we review for plain error. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.1994)(en banc). Under our precedent, which Rodriguez acknowledges, the district court’s consecutive sentence did not constitute plain error. See United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Related

United States v. Rodriguez-Gutierrez
428 F.3d 201 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
Rodriguez-Gutierrez v. United States
544 U.S. 1047 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Mendoza-Salinas v. United States
544 U.S. 1047 (Supreme Court, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
428 F.3d 201, 119 F. App'x 681, 2005 WL 2447908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rodriguez-gutierrez-ca5-2005.