IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-41312

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL ISIDRO SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CR-809-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Isidro Sanchez-Hernandez (Sanchez) appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction for being unlawfully present in the United

States following removal. For the first time on appeal, Sanchez argues that the

sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He asserts that the

sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not give

a sufficient explanation for imposing a term of supervised release despite the

admonition in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) that a term of supervised release should not

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 17, 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: 11-41312 Document: 00512116719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2013
No. 11-41312

ordinarily be imposed in a case such as the present case. He contends that the

sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court’s imposition

of a term of supervised release was an upward departure from the guidelines

sentence range made without the required pre-sentencing notice. He maintains

that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court did

not give sufficient weight to the recommendation in § 5D1.1(c) that a term of

supervised release not ordinarily be imposed in a case such as this case.

The Government argues that Sanchez invited the alleged error by agreeing

with the district court that the guidelines range was one to three years of

supervised release. However, the record does not reflect that Sanchez conceded

that a term of supervised release should be imposed, but that he simply failed

to object to a specific issue. Accordingly, we review Sanchez’s claims for plain

error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.

2009); see also United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th

Cir. 2012). To establish plain error, one must show a forfeited error that is clear

or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556

U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to

correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity,

or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

Our analysis shows that Sanchez has not met this standard. Because the

three-year term of supervised release imposed by the district court was within

the statutory and guidelines range, the supervised release term was not a

departure. See Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 329. At sentencing, the

district court explained that it was imposing a term of supervised release

because of Sanchez’s immigration history, because Sanchez was a danger to the

public, and because Sanchez was a danger to the United States. In light of these

remarks, Sanchez has not met the plain error standard with respect to his term

of supervised release. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 11-41312 Document: 00512116719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2013