### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40208 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ENCARNACION HURTADO-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CR-1062-1

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Encarnacion Hurtado-Cruz (Hurtado) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being an alien unlawfully present in the United States after deportation. The district court sentenced Hurtado to a 46- month term of imprisonment and to a two-year term of supervised release. Hurtado contends that the di s t ri c t court’s imposition of a term of supervised release resulted in a procedurally and sub s t a ntively unreasonable sentence. Specifically , h e argues that the district court erred procedurally by 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 Decem ber 2 1, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court 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: 12-40208 Document: 00512092382 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2012No. 12-40208

failing to give notice that it was departing from the Guidelines and by failing to explain its imposition of a term of supervised release. He also asserts that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence becau s e it failed to a c c o u nt for U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), which provides that “[t]he court ordinarily should not impose a term of supervi s e d r e l e a s e in a case in which supervised release is not require d b y statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment.” Because he failed to raise an objection to his sentence in the district court,

our review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado , 695 F.3d 324, 32 7 (5th Cir. 2012). To show plain error, Hurtado must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. The term of supervision imposed on Hurtado was within the statutory and guidelines range for his offense of convi c tion; therefore, it did not trigger a “departure analysis.” See Dominguez-Alvarado , 6 9 5 F.3d at 329. Hurtado’s contention that the district court w a s r e qu ired to give notice of its departure from the guidelines thus fails. See id. Further, at sentencing the district court noted Hurtado’s criminal history and explained th a t the sentence imposed on Hurtado was warr anted under the guidelines and the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3 (a). This was a sufficient explanation for the within-guidelines sentence. See id.; see also United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 5 1 9 ( 5 th Cir. 2005) ( s t a ting that “little explanation is required” where the judge imposes a sentence within the guideline range). Finally, because the supervised release term was within the guideline range, we apply a presumption of reasonableness, and we infer that the district court considered all pertinent sentencing considerations in imposing the sentence. See Mares , 402 F.3d at 519. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-40208 Document: 00512092382 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2012