### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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 f o l l o wing his guilty plea conviction for being unlawfully present in the Unite d 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 supervise d r e lease despite the admonition in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) that a term of supervised release should not U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary17 , 20 13 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-41312 Document: 00512116719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2013No. 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 de p arture 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 i n § 5D1.1(c) that a term of supervised release not ordinarily be imposed in a case such as this case. Th e Govern m e nt argu e s that Sanchez invited the alleged error by agre ein g with the di s t ri c t c o urt 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, b u t that he simply failed to object to a specific issue. Accordingly, we r e view Sanchez’s claims for plain

error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 3 6 1 ( 5 th 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

-A l v a rado , 695 F.3d at 329. At sentencing, the di s t rict court explained that it was imposing a term of supervised re l e a s e 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