United States v. Luis Ruiz-Dominguez
713 F. App'x 273
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Luis Alberto Ruiz-Dominguez pled guilty to being in the U.S. after deportation following a prior felony conviction.
- The PSR applied the 2016 Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. §2L1.2), yielding Total Offense Level 17 and Criminal History Category VI, with a guideline range of 51–63 months.
- Ruiz-Dominguez argued the court should have applied the 2015 Guidelines, which would have produced at most Total Offense Level 13 and a 33–41 month range.
- The Government conceded the district court committed a clear ex post facto error by using the 2016 Guidelines and that the error affected Ruiz-Dominguez’s substantial rights (the imposed 63‑month sentence exceeded the correct high end by 22 months).
- The sole remaining question was whether the court should exercise its discretion under the fourth prong of plain‑error review to correct the forfeited error.
- The court declined to correct the error, citing Ruiz-Dominguez’s extensive recidivist criminal history (about 15 years, 16 convictions, and multiple arrests) as weighing against relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing under the 2016 Guidelines violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and constitutes plain error | Ruiz‑Dominguez: court erred by using 2016 §2L1.2; 2015 Guidelines applied at time of offense would have produced a lower range | Government: concedes clear ex post facto/plain error and harm but opposes correction under fourth‑prong discretion due to defendant’s recidivism | Error established and affected substantial rights; court declined to correct under fourth prong because recidivism counseled against relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error standard and discretionary relief under fourth prong)
- United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643 (5th Cir.) (substantial‑rights showing and recidivism relevant to discretionary correction)
- United States v. Escalante‑Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. en banc) (fourth prong is not automatic; miscarriage of justice standard)
- United States v. Martinez‑Rodriguez, 821 F.3d 659 (5th Cir.) (compare degree of error and case facts when exercising discretion)
- United States v. Torres, 856 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir.) (large guideline gap alone does not mandate correction when other factors—like recidivism—weigh against relief)