UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4227

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAIRO MENDEZ GARCIA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:14-cr-00155-RAJ-1)

Submitted: December 14, 2015 Decided: January 19, 2016

Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. 

Bryant, Appellate Attorney, Keith Loren Kimball, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Melissa Elaine O’Boyle, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jairo Mendez Garcia pled guilty, without a plea agreement, 

to illegal reentry of a removed felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012). The district court sentenced him to 

36 months’ imprisonment, a downward variance from the 41- to 51-

month Sentencing Guidelines range, and imposed a 3-year term of 

supervised release. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating 

that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but 

questioning the validity of Mendez Garcia’s guilty plea and the 

reasonableness of the imposition of a term of supervised 

release. Although notified of his right to do so, Mendez Garcia 

did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm.

Counsel for Mendez Garcia questions whether omissions at 

the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing rendered the guilty plea 

invalid. Because Mendez Garcia did not assert in the district 

court any error in the plea proceedings or move to withdraw his 

guilty plea, we review the adequacy of his plea colloquy for 

plain error. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 342 

(4th Cir. 2009). To establish plain error, Mendez Garcia must 

demonstrate that the district court erred, the error was plain, 

and it affected his substantial rights. Henderson v. United 

States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013). In the guilty plea 
3

context, an error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if he 

demonstrates a reasonable probability that he would not have 

pled guilty but for the error. Massenburg, 564 F.3d at 343. 

Even if these requirements are met, we will “correct the error 

only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. 

Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 381 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Our review of the record reveals that the district court 

substantially complied with the mandates of Rule 11 and that 

Mendez Garcia’s substantial rights were unaffected by any 

omissions. We conclude that Mendez Garcia’s guilty plea was 

knowing and voluntary. 

Counsel for Mendez Garcia contends that the district court 

erred in imposing a term of supervised release because Mendez 

Garcia is a deportable alien. Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual § 5D1.1(c) (2014), a 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.” Id. However, the Advisory Notes clarify 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 
4

based on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.” 

USSG § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5. Here, the district court and the parties 

recognized that Mendez Garcia would be deported, and the 

presentence report had expressly referenced USSG § 5D1.1(c), but 

no objection was made to the imposition of a term of supervised 

release. We therefore review for plain error Mendez Garcia’s 

challenge to the imposition of a supervised release term. 

United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 422 (4th Cir. 

2015).

The imposition of a term of supervised release on a 

deportable alien is reasonable if the “sentencing court (1) is 

aware of Guidelines section 5D1.1(c); (2) considers a 

defendant’s specific circumstances and the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) 

[(2012)] factors; and (3) determines that additional deterrence 

is needed.” Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d at 424 (citing United 

States v. Alvarado, 720 F.3d 153, 159 (2d Cir. 2013)). We have 

reviewed the record with these standards in mind and find that 

the district court did not plainly err in imposing a term of 

supervised release on this defendant.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found 

none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Mendez Garcia, in 

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the 
5

United States for further review. If Mendez Garcia requests 

that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a 

petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on his client. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED