Case ID: f-appx_581/html/0821-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexis Horacio ARREOLA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-11303
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 16, 2014.
    Kathleen Mary Salyer, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Maria Kostantina Medetis, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Sowmya Bharathi, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Alexis Horacio Arreola, FDC Miami-Inmate Legal Mail, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Alexis Arreola pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender, see 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), and the district court sentenced him to 364 days in prison followed by 10 years of supervised release with some special conditions. Mr. Arreola appeals, arguing that the 10-year period of supervised release was substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

Mr. Arreola did not object to the 10-year term of supervised release in the district court, so we review only for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Hoffman, 710 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir.2013). Under that standard, there is no reversible error. First, the district court stated that it had considered the statutory factors, and its downward variance of one day with respect to imprisonment indicates that it did take Mr. Arreola’s specific circumstances into account. Second, the advisory guidelines range for supervised release was 5 years to life, and the 10-year term was toward the lower end of that range. Third, nothing in the record indicates that the district court gave too much weight to the advisory guidelines range. Fourth, a 10-year period of supervised release was reasonable given Mr. Arreola’s planned travel between Guatemala and Florida.

Affirmed.