Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
06-41039•Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Julio Cesar Donjuan-Gonzalez
06-41039Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit29.02.2008
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-41039
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JULIO CESAR DONJUAN-GONZALEZ
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:06-CR-88-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Julio Cesar Donjuan-Gonzalez (Donjuan) filed a pro se notice of appeal in
which he designated only case number 2:06-CR-88-1. We liberally construe the
notice to include case number 2:03-CR-348-2, which concerns the sentence
imposed following the revocation of his supervised release, and in which a
judgment was rendered at the same hearing at which the sentence was imposed
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 29, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 06-41039
2
in case number 2:06-CR-88-1. See Trust Co. Bank v. United States Gypsum Co.,
950 F.2d 1144, 1148 (5th Cir. 1992).
Donjuan argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in
failing to give oral or written reasons for sentencing him above the advisory
guideline range for the revocation of his supervised release and for failing to
consider the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements concerning the advisory
guideline range. Because the district court stated that it had considered both
the guideline policy statements and Donjuan’s multiple supervised release law
violations and because the record indicates that the district court considered the
appropriate advisory guideline range, the district court did not commit plain
error in sentencing Donjuan. See United States v. Izaguirre-Losoya, 219 F.3d
437, 441 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Montez, 952 F.2d 854, 860 (5th Cir.
1992).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.