N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ISAAC R ODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50032

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-03035-B TM -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arry T. M oskowitz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 18, 2013 ** B e fore : HUG, FAR

R IS, an d LEAVY, C irc uit Judge s. Isa a c R odrigue z -Lope z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t’ s c o urt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the thre e -y e ar te rm of supe rvise d re l e a se im

pose d following his c onvic tion for im

porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 and 960. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED

MAR 11 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).R odrigue z -Lope z c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d by fa iling to provide

any e xpla n ation for why

it wa s im posing a te rm of supe rvise d re le a se and fa iling to e xpla in why it wa s im posing supervise d re le a se de spite U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c ), whic h provide s tha t c ourts “ ordina

rily should not im

pose a te rm of supe rvise d re le a s e in a c a se in whic h supe rvise d re le a se is not re quire d by sta tute and the de fe nda

nt is a de porta ble a lie n who like ly

will bede porte d a fte r im prisonm e nt.” B e c a

use R o d rigue z -Lope z did not obje c t in thedistric t c ourt, we re vie w for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Dallman , 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th C ir. 2008). Thedistric t c ourt provide d a num be r of re a s ons for im

posing a se nte nc e of 51 m onths in prison a

nd thre e y e ars of supe rvise d re le a se , inc luding a ne e d for de te rre nc e . Thus, there wa s no pla in e rror. Se e id. ; se ealso United State s v . Domingue

z-Alv arado, 695 F.3d 324, 329-30 (5th C ir. 2012) (holding tha t e xpla nation for im

posing te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se wa s a de quate whe re ne ithe r the p artie s nor the distric t c ourt m e ntione d § 5D1.1 a nd the distric t c ourt sim

ply sta te d tha t it “ gave the se nte nc e a fte r looking a t the fa c tors in 3553(a

), to de te r future c rim ina l c onduc t , his pa rtic ula r ba c kground a

n d c ha ra c t e ristic s ” ); Unite d State s v . Valdav inos-Torre

s , 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th C ir. 2012) (re vie wing distric t c ourt’ s e xpla

nation in Domingue

z-Alv arado and a

pproving of the

Fifth C irc uit’ s re a s oning in tha

t c a se ). 2R odrigue z -Lope z a lso c ha lle nge s the te rm of supe rvise d re le a se a s substa ntive ly unre a sona

b l e . W e re vie w the se nte nc e unde r an a buse of disc re tion sta nda rd. Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The distric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion. Thete rm of supe rvise d re le a se is not substa ntive ly unre a s ona

ble in light of the

tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s a nd the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) fa c tors, inc luding Rodrigue z -Lope z ’ s im porta tion of a la rge qua ntity of m e tha m phe tam ine , the distric t c ourt’ s de pa rture whe n im

posing thete rm

of im prisonm e nt, a

nd the re sulting ne e d to providea de quate de te rre nc e . S e eGall , 552 U.S. a

t 51; Valdav inos-Torre

s, 704 F.3d a

t 692-93; se ealso U.S.S.G. 5D1.1(c ) c m t. n. 5 (providing tha

t distric t c ourt should c onside r im posing te rm s of supe rvise d re le a se on de porta b le a lie n if it de te rm ine s tha t supe rvise d re le a s e would provide

a d de d m e a sure of de t e rre n c e ). AFFIRM E D .

3