IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10889

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

FRANCISCO CASTILLO-CELAYA, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:15-CR-57-1 

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Francisco Castillo-Celaya pleaded guilty to illegal 

reentry and was sentenced to 45 months of imprisonment and three years of 

supervised release. On appeal, Castillo-Celaya challenges the procedural and 

substantive reasonableness of his three-year term of supervised release. He 

contends that the district court’s imposition of supervised release was 

procedurally unreasonable because the court “did not make any particularized 

 

* 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

December 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10889 Document: 00513785871 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
No. 15-10889

2 

findings” that supervised release was warranted. He further maintains that 

his supervised release was substantively unreasonable because it was not 

supported by “the particular facts of the case.” Castillo-Celaya also argues that 

his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum 

penalty for a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a); however, he correctly 

concedes that this argument is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United 

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Because Castillo-Celaya failed to raise the foregoing issues in the district 

court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 

695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2012). To establish plain error, Castillo-Celaya 

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, we have the discretion to correct the error only if it 

seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings. See id. 

Section 5D1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides that the district 

court “ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release 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.” U.S.S.G. 

§ 5D1.1(c). The commentary to § 5D1.1(c) explains, however, that the district 

court “should . . . consider imposing a term of supervised release on such a 

defendant if the court determines it would provide an added measure of 

deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances of a particular 

case.” § 5D1.1, comment. (n.5); see Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 329.

The district court determined that a term of supervised release was 

necessary to deter Castillo-Celaya from illegally reentering, explaining that 

Castillo-Celaya “ha[d] shown that he is likely to return to the United States” 

 Case: 15-10889 Document: 00513785871 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
No. 15-10889

3 

and that the term of supervised release would “offer additional sanctions 

should he return to the United States illegally within the three-year period.” 

This was a sufficiently particularized explanation to justify the district court’s 

imposition of a within-guidelines term of supervised release. See United States 

v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 2013). Thus, the district court 

committed no procedural error, plain or otherwise. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 

135; Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Because the district court imposed a within-guidelines term of 

supervised release, it is presumptively reasonable, see United States v. 

Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d 601, 607-08 (5th Cir. 2013), and we “will infer that 

the judge has considered all the factors for a fair sentence set forth in the 

Guidelines,” United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). The 

record reflects that the district court implicitly considered § 5D1.1(c)’s 

recommendation that supervised release ordinarily should not be imposed on 

a deportable alien who will likely be deported after he is released from prison, 

as well as Castillo-Celaya’s criminal history and personal characteristics. 

Castillo-Celaya has not offered any persuasive argument to rebut the 

presumption of reasonableness, much less demonstrated plain error. See 

Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d at 607-08.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-10889 Document: 00513785871 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/06/2016