Case ID: f-appx_574/html/0786-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Omar ACOSTA-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50360.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 21, 2014.
    Faith Aline Devine, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Sandra Resnick, El Cajon, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Omar Acosta-Alvarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Acosta-Alvarez contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to explain adequately either the extent of its variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines or its imposition of a term of supervised release. Contrary to Acosta-Alvarez’s argument, we review for plain error because he did not assert these objections in the district court. See United States v. Valencias-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n. 3 (9th Cir.2010). The district court sufficiently explained the sentence, including the supervised release term. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (“[AJdequate explanation in some cases may ... be inferred from ... the record as a whole.”).

Acosta-Alvarez also contends that the three-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing supervised release. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692 (9th Cir.2012). The three-year term is not substantively unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and Acosta-Alvarez’s criminal and immigration history. See id. at 692-93; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n. 5.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.