491 F. App'x 514
5th Cir.
2012

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Murillo DOMINGUEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-40400

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 2012.

496 F. App‘x 514

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Murillo Dominguez-Garcia appeals from his conviction of being found illegally in the United States. He contends that the district court erred by imposing a two-year term of supervised release. He argues that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. In his reply brief, he concedes that his arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2012), and he states that he wishes to raise the issues to preserve them for further review.

Dominguez-Garcia‘s challenges to the procedural reasonableness of his supervised release sentence are foreclosed by Dominguez-Alvarado. See Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 328-29. As for the substantive reasonableness challenge, the district court articulated an acceptable reason for imposing a term of supervised release on Dominguez-Garcia, see id., and the record does not suggest that the imposition of a term of supervised release was otherwise unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel RODRIGUEZ-PRIETO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-51119

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 2012.

496 F. App‘x 514

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender‘s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Rodriguez-Prieto (Rodriguez) appeals his 87-month sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He asserts that the district court plainly erred by assigning a criminal history point under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(f) (2009) under the theory that the sentence for one of his North Carolina crimes of violence did not receive any points because it was counted together with the sentence imposed for the other North Carolina offense under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). He asserts that the two offenses were consolidated in a single judgment that produced a single sentence under North Carolina General Statutes § 15A-1340.15(b).

The North Carolina procedure does not affect the Guideline § 4A1.2(a)(2) direction that “any prior sentence covered by (A) or (B)” is counted as a single sentence. It follows that, whether the district judge added one history point because of § 4A1.1(f) or three more for the second crime of violence, there was no error for defendant‘s complaint.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Steve BOWIE-MYLES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Warden, Reeves County Detention Center III; Bureau of Prisons; Geo Group, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 11-50700

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 2012.

496 F. App‘x 515

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Steve Bowie-Myles, Pecos, TX, pro se. Gary Layton Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.

PER CURIAM:*

Steve Bowie-Myles, federal prisoner # 41540-018, an alien against whom the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has issued a detainer subjecting him to immediate removal from the United States upon release from custody, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons‘s exclusion of him from rehabilitation programs and halfway houses. The petition is foreclosed by Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States, 688 F.3d 190, 192-93 (5th Cir.2012) (per curiam), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 561, 184 L.Ed.2d 365 (2012).

The judgment is AFFIRMED. Bowie-Myles‘s motion to expedite the appeal or for summary affirmance is DENIED.

Notes

*
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. 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. 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.