Filed: Feb. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-30740 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LLOYD A. DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (USDC No. 96-CR-35-R) - - - - - - - - - - November 14, 1997 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lloyd A. Dominguez appeals from his conviction and sentence for possession wit
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-30740 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LLOYD A. DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (USDC No. 96-CR-35-R) - - - - - - - - - - November 14, 1997 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Lloyd A. Dominguez appeals from his conviction and sentence for possession with..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30740
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LLOYD A. DOMINGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(USDC No. 96-CR-35-R)
- - - - - - - - - -
November 14, 1997
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lloyd A. Dominguez appeals from his conviction and sentence
for possession with intent to distribute, and for conspiracy to
distribute, cocaine. He complains of (1) the inadequacy of the
indictment, (2) an evidentiary ruling, and (3) the length of his
sentence. Our review of the record and of the arguments and
authorities convinces us that no reversible error was committed.
Dominguez fails to establish that the district court plainly erred
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
by failing to dismiss the indictment sua sponte. See United States
v. Gaytan,
74 F.3d 545, 551 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court
did not abuse its discretion by allowing a case agent to testify
that the pen registers that were installed on one of Dominguez’s
coconspirator’s phones showed that, between November 1994 and April
1995, Dominguez called that coconspirator’s home 63 times. See
United States v. Fagan,
821 F.2d 1002, 1008 n.1 (5th Cir. 1987).
Neither did the district court commit plain error in sentencing
Dominguez to 280 months’ imprisonment. See United States v.
Calverley,
37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2