### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-40352 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee

v. JUAN JESUS ACEVEDO-GALLEGOS, Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-1586-1

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Jesus Acevedo-Gallegos was convic t ed of unlawfully receiving a firearm while under a f e l o ny indictment, and sentenced to 45 months’ imprisonment, with three years’ supervised release. Acevedo first claims the conviction statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), is unconstitutional, both on its face and

as applied to him, because it does not require a significant effect on interstate

commerce and, alter n a t e l y , because no such effect has been shown here. Acevedo concedes, however, that similar arguments have been repeatedly 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 has d ete rm ined t hat 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 for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40352 Document: 00512116856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2013No. 12-40352

reject e d with respect to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which has a jurisdictional nexus requirement virtually identical to that for § 922(n). E.g. , United States v . De Leon , 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999). The same reasoning applies here and renders Acevedo’s challenge unavailing. Id. (Along that line, he states this issue is raised only to preserve it for possible further review.) Alternatively, Acevedo contends his sentence should be overturned because: the district court did not sufficiently explain its imposing supervised release; it did not give notice of intent to depart from the advisory Guidelines by imposing supe r v i s e d r e lease; and it did not afford sufficient weight to the Guidelines’ prefere n c e f or no term of supervised release for those who, like Acevedo, will probably be deported. Although post- Booker , the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and

a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is r e viewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the distr i c t court must still properly calculate the Guideline-sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United State s , 5 5 2 U

. S

. 3 8, 48-51 (2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo ; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g. , United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Villegas , 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005 ). B e c a u s e A c e v e d o f

a i l e d t o p r e s e n t h i s c o n t e n t i o n s i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t , r e v i e w i s o n l y f o r p l a i n e r r o r . E

. g
. , U

n i t e d S t a t e s v . D o m i n

g u e z - A l v a r a d o , 6 9 5 F

. 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 1 2 )

. F o r r e v e r s i b l e p l a i n e r r o r , A c e v e d o m u s t s h o w , i n t e r a l i a , a f o r f e i t e d e r r o r t h a t i s c l e a r o r o b v i o u s . P u c k e t t v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 5 6 U

. S

. 1 2 9 , 1 3 5 ( 2 0 0 9 )

. H e f

a i l s t o d o s o . Because the three-years’ supervised release imposed by the district court

was within Acevedo’s statutory and a d v i s o r y G u i d e l i nes sentencing range, it was not a sentencing departure. E.g. , Dominguez-Alvarado , 695 F.3d at 329 ( u s e o f

“ o r d i n a r y ” i n G u i d e l i n e § 5 D 1

. 1 ( c ) c o n s i d e r e d “ h o r t a t o r y n o t m a n d a t o r y ” ; i m p o s i n g
2 Case: 12-40352 Document: 00512116856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2013No. 12-40352

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e w i t h i n s t a t u t o r y a n d a d v i s o r y G u i d e l i n e s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e d o e s

n o t t r i g g e r d e p a r t u r e a n a l y s i s )

. When considered as a whole, the district court’s “particularized remark[s]” at sentencing demonstrate it wished for the sentence to promote deterrence and protection in t h e light of Acevedo’s history and characteristics. Id. at 329-30. This justified imposition of supervised release. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-40352 Document: 00512116856 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/17/2013