Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-12-10230/USCOURTS-ca5-12-10230-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Flavio Hernandez-Caballero
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10230

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FLAVIO HERNANDEZ-CABALLERO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:11-CR-35-1

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Flavio Hernandez-Caballero appeals the sentence imposed for his

conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that his sentence

is procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district court

imposed a two-year term of supervised release, notwithstanding that U.S.S.G.

§ 5D1.1(c) provides that supervised release “ordinarily” should not be imposed

“in a case in which supervised release is not required by statute and the

defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment.” 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 3, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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: 12-10230 Document: 00512100234 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/03/2013
No. 12-10230

Hernandez-Caballero contends that the district court, in imposing supervised

release, relied on the prohibited factor of punishment. Because HernandezCaballero did not raise this objection in the district court, review is limited to

plain error. See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 328 (5th

Cir. 2012); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

The record reflects that the district court was aware of the provisions of

§ 5D1.1(c). Given the statements that the district court made when it imposed

the sentence,which addressed Hernandez-Caballero’shistory and characteristics

and the need for deterrence and protection, Hernandez-Caballero fails to show

that the district court procedurally erred by relying on the prohibited factor of

punishment in imposing the term of supervised release. See DominguezAlvarado, 695 F.3d at 329-30. Additionally, given that the district court relied

upon the permissible factors of deterrence and protection in imposing the term

of supervised release, Hernandez-Caballero’s argument that his sentence is

substantively unreasonable because it gives significant weight to an “improper

factor” also fails. The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-10230 Document: 00512100234 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/03/2013