U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2004

United States v. Madrigal-Ferreira

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 2, 2004 · Higginbotham, Davis, Prado

86 F. App'x 713

Counsel

Mitchel Neurock, Laredo, TX, James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Madrigal-Ferreira v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Pedro Madrigal-Ferreira appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry. Madrigal first argues that the district court erred in considering higher offense levels, as opposed to higher criminal history categories, when it departed upward based upon a dismissed count pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21. This court has not addressed the issue whether a sentencing court must depart horizontally when departing pursuant to § 5K2.21; thus, Madrigal has not shown that the district court plainly erred in so doing. See United States v. Hull, 160 F.3d 265, 271-72 (5th Cir. 1998).

Second, Madrigal asserts that, because the written judgment does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence, this case must be remanded to the district court for it to amend the written judgment by striking the condition of release that Madrigal not possess any other dangerous weapon. This court recently addressed this same issue and rejected it. See United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 *714 F.3d 934 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the issue is foreclosed.

AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.