Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Erickson Dominguez-Gonzalez, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Erickson Dominguez-Gonzalez's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion based on public safety grounds, as it is permitted to do under United States v. Smalls. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-05-31 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7996

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Erickson Dominguez-Gonzalez's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion based on public safety grounds, as it is permitted to do under United States v. Smalls. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views2 pages

    United States v. Erickson Dominguez-Gonzalez, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Erickson Dominguez-Gonzalez's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion based on public safety grounds, as it is permitted to do under United States v. Smalls. The Court of Appeals dispensed with oral argument, finding the relevant facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-7996

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ERICKSON DOMINGUEZ-GONZALEZ, a/k/a Domingues A. Trinidad,
    a/k/a Christian Enrique Torres-Torres, a/k/a Mexico,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:08-cr-00365-BR-3)

    Submitted:

    May 26, 2016

    Decided:

    May 31, 2016

    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit


    Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Erickson Dominguez-Gonzalez, Appellant Pro Se.


    Eric David
    Goulian, Jonathan Philip Holbrook, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Erickson

    Dominguez-Gonzalez

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion.


    We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court
    did not abuse its discretion in denying Dominguez-Gonzalez a
    sentence reduction on public safety grounds.

    See United States v.

    Smalls, 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating standard).

    We

    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like