### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-50682 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE ELIAZAR ARECHIGA-DUARTE, also known as Jose Eliazar ArechigaDurate, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:11-CR-1903-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose E liazar Arechiga-Duart e p l e aded guilty t o illegal r e entry after deportation. The advisory guidelines range o f i m p ri sonment w as 6 to 12 months. At sentencing, the district court found that Arechiga-Duarte’s criminal history

score did not represent h i s criminal history a dequately and increased his criminal history category from I to IV, resulting i n a recommended range of 15 to 21 months of imprisonment. The dis t r i c t c o u rt, in an upward departure, U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 21, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-50682 Document: 00512182869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2013No. 12-50682

sentenced h i m to 21 months of imprisonment a nd three years of supervised release. On appeal, Arechiga-Duarte does n ot challenge the district court’s upward d eparture based on his criminal history. R ather he argues that the term of supervised release w as procedurally and substantively unreasonable because the district c o u r t failed to make case-specific findings to justify it. Because Arechiga-Duarte did n o t r a i se his objections in the district court, review is for plain e rror. United States v. Dominguez-Al v a r a do , 695 F.3d 3 24, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2012). Under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), supervised release is not ordinarily imposed on aliens w ho will likely be deported. When § 5D1.1(c) applies, “supervised release should not be imposed absent a determination that s upervised re l e a se would provide an added m easure of deterrence a nd protection based on the facts and circums t a n ces of a particular case.” Dominguez-Alvarado , 695 F.3d at 329; § 5D1.1, comment. (n.5). Arechiga-Duarte had 10 prior convi c t i o ns, for which the district court specifically found that it was necessary to i n c rease his term of imprisonment considering the sentencing factors found at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which include protecting the public and deterring criminal conduct. ArechigaDuarte has not challenged the upward departure or the findings supporting it. Arechiga-Duarte does not address why th ese unchallenged findings are not sufficient to support the imposition of a term o f supervised release considering the same § 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, Arechiga-Duarte has not established, under the applicable plain error standard, that his s entence was either procedurally o r substantively unreasonab l e. See Puckett v. United S tates , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-50682 Document: 00512182869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2013