Scribd
Upload
56 views2 pages

United States v. Graciliano Dominguez, 92 F.3d 1183, 4th Cir. (1996)

This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Graciliano Dominguez pled guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine and was sentenced to 135 months in prison. Dominguez appealed his sentence. The court-appointed lawyer argued there were no meritorious grounds for appeal in a brief submitted according to Anders v. California. The court affirmed Dominguez's conviction and sentence, finding that he understood his pre-sentence report after it was translated for him and that the sentence was properly within the guidelines.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
56 views2 pages

United States v. Graciliano Dominguez, 92 F.3d 1183, 4th Cir. (1996)

This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Graciliano Dominguez pled guilty to conspiracy to possess cocaine and was sentenced to 135 months in prison. Dominguez appealed his sentence. The court-appointed lawyer argued there were no meritorious grounds for appeal in a brief submitted according to Anders v. California. The court affirmed Dominguez's conviction and sentence, finding that he understood his pre-sentence report after it was translated for him and that the sentence was properly within the guidelines.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

92 F.

3d 1183

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation


of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Graciliano DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 95-5609.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


Submitted: July 23, 1996
Decided: Aug. 5, 1996

Reynolds Williams, WILLCOX, MCLEOD, BUYCK & WILLIAMS,


Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:

Graciliano Dominguez pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to


distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 846 (West 1981 & Supp.1996).
The district court sentenced Dominguez to serve 135 months imprisonment
followed by five years of supervised release and a special assessment fee of
$50. Dominguez appeals the judgment. Dominguez's attorney has filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two
issues but indicating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. Dominguez was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
which he has failed to file.

Dominguez's counsel first raises the issue of whether Dominguez understood


his presentence report. Dominguez stated at the sentencing hearing, when asked
if he had read his presentence report, that "since I didn't know English, I read it,
more or less, and I understood, more or less, what it contained." (July 24, 1995
Tr. at 2). He also stated that the presentence report had not been read to him by
someone who could translate English into Spanish. (Id.). At that time, the
presiding judge ordered that the interpreter go into a separate room with
Dominguez and his attorney to read the presentence report to Dominguez. (Id.
at 3). After having the report read to him, Dominguez told the court that he
understood the report, discussed it with his attorney, and understood the
discussions with his attorney. (Id.). Thus, this claim is without merit as the
substance of the presentence report was conveyed to Dominguez through an
interpreter and he understood the implications of the report.

Dominguez's counsel next raises the issue that the district court erred in not
sentencing Dominguez to the lowest possible guideline level. Following a
review of the record, we conclude that Dominguez was properly sentenced
within the guidelines. See United States v. Owens, 902 F.2d 1154, 1157 (4th
Cir.1990). Furthermore, Dominguez offers no basis on which to reduce his
sentence. We therefore affirm Dominguez's conviction and sentence.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have examined the entire


record in this case and find no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

You might also like