Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50364/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50364-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Senen Ballesteros-Valverde
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50364

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SENEN BALLESTEROS-VALVERDE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:13-CR-250-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Senen Ballesteros-Valverde (Ballesteros) was found guilty of being 

unlawfully present in the United States subsequent to removal, in violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court, without providing reasons, sentenced 

Ballesteros to 70 months of imprisonment and a three-year term of 

nonreporting supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Ballesteros 

argues that the district court erred when it imposed a term of supervised 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50364 Document: 00512991231 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
No. 14-50364

release against a deportable alien based on its reliance on an erroneous 

presentence report and without providing an explanation for its decision to 

deviate from U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c)’s recommendation that supervised release not 

be imposed in such circumstances. Because Ballesteros did not object to the 

term of supervised release, we review this argument for plain error. See United 

States v. Dominquez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2012). “Plain 

error review requires four determinations: whether there was error at all; 

whether it was plain or obvious; whether the error affected the defendant’s 

substantial rights; and whether this court should exercise its discretion to 

correct the error in order to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 

328.

The district court retains the discretion to impose supervised release in 

cases involving a deportable alien where the facts and circumstances reflect 

the need for a deterrence measure. Id. at 329. A district court need not 

specifically refer to § 5D1.1(c) as long as it offers a “particularized explanation 

and concern [that] would justify imposition of a term of supervised release.” 

Id. at 330; United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2013).

In the instant case, the district court gave no particularized explanation 

regarding the necessity for a term of supervised release, nor did it explicitly 

state that it had considered the statutory sentencing factors as applied to 

Ballesteros’s case. In addition, the presentence report did not reference 

§ 5D1.1(c). Although the district court clearly erred by relying on the outdated 

Guidelines and by not providing a particularized explanation, Ballesteros has 

not shown that the error affected his substantial rights or, if left uncorrected, 

would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009);

2

Case: 14-50364 Document: 00512991231 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
No. 14-50364

Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 328; United States v. Cancino-Trinidad, 710 

F.3d 601, 606-07 (5th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 14-50364 Document: 00512991231 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2015