United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50502

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Alfonso Dominguez-Mendoza, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-574-1

Before Southwick, Haynes, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Alfonso Dominguez-Mendoza pled guilty to illegal reentry following 

deportation. During a sentencing hearing with 30 other defendants, the 

district courtsentenced him to a term of imprisonment within the Guidelines 

range and also to a three-year period of supervised release. On appeal,

Dominguez-Mendoza asserts that the district court erred by imposing a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50502 Document: 00516235067 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2022
No. 21-50502

2

period of supervised release and by doing so without explanation. We 

AFFIRM.

Dominguez-Mendoza did not object to the district court’s imposition 

of supervised release during sentencing. Therefore, we review his argument 

for plain error. United States v. Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d 601, 605 (5th Cir. 

2013). “Plain error review requires four determinations: whether there was 

error at all; whether it was plain or obvious; whether the error affected the 

defendant’s substantial rights; and whether this court should exercise its 

discretion to correct the error in order to prevent a manifest miscarriage of 

justice.” United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 328 (5th Cir. 

2012). We will correct plain error “only if the error seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quoting 

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)).

Section 5D1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines instructs courts to order a 

term of supervised release when required by statute or if a defendant is 

sentenced to more than a year in prison. This Section also states that a 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 word “ordinarily” in Section 5D1.1(c) is “hortatory, not 

mandatory,” and the district court has authority to impose supervised release 

if that court “determines it would provide an added measure of deterrence 

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

Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 329. If the district court decides to require 

supervision after release, it is obligated to provide some “particularized 

explanation” to address why it is doing so. Id. at 330. A district court can 

satisfy the obligation to explain the imposition “with a single sentence finding 

supervised release appropriate” based on the sentencing factors listed in 18 

Case: 21-50502 Document: 00516235067 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2022
No. 21-50502

3

U.S.C. Section 3553(a), deterrence, and the defendant’s particular 

background and characteristics. United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 

349 (5th Cir. 2013).

Dominguez-Mendoza challenges the district court’s sentence in two 

ways. First, he argues the district court committed procedural error by failing

to provide a particularized explanation for imposing supervised release. 

Second, he argues the district court erred because it failed to consider Section 

5D1.1(c) as required by the Sentencing Guidelines, making the imposition of 

supervised release substantively unreasonable. To succeed on either basis, 

Dominguez-Mendoza must show that these alleged errors affected his 

substantial rights. Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d at 606. 

One form of procedural error is when a defendant is sentenced under 

an improper Guidelines range. See, e.g., Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 

U.S. 189, 195–96, 200 (2016). In that situation, “the error itself can, and 

most often will, be sufficient to show a reasonable probability of a different 

outcome absent the error.” Id. at 198. The claim here is different, namely, 

that the district court did not adequately explain why supervised release was 

imposed. We see no basis to assume prejudice in this circumstance and look 

for more.

In Cancino-Trinidad, this court considered whether the imposition of 

a term of supervised release was plainly erroneous where the district court 

may not have been aware that supervised release was discretionary. CancinoTrinidad, 710 F.3d at 604. The presentence report used at sentencing 

erroneously stated that supervised released was mandatory. Id. at 606. We 

concluded that the district court plainly erred by relying on an outdated 

version of the Guidelines but no prejudice had occurred because the district 

court had explained why it was important that this defendant be supervised 

after release. Id. 606-07. Thus, even had the district court known it had 

Case: 21-50502 Document: 00516235067 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2022
No. 21-50502

4

discretion, it was clear that the court would still have required supervision 

after release. 

Somewhat similarly, the argument here is that the Guidelines 

recommend not imposing supervised release for defendants who will be 

deported after serving their sentences. § 5D1.1(c). The failure of the district 

court to give any reason for requiring supervision for this defendant, or for 

any of the 30 it sentenced at the same time, all of whom were likely to be 

deported after serving their sentences, was procedural error because it 

prevents “meaningful appellate review” and undermines the “perception of 

fair sentencing.” United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th 

Cir. 2009). We mention the claim that there were 30 similarly situated 

defendants just to show that this district judge, at least that day, made a threeyear period ofsupervised release a component of all but two sentencesfor the 

defendants subject to removal. 

Before we would vacate a sentence, whether as to supervised release 

or some other aspect, a defendant must “show a reasonable probability” that 

the district court would not have imposed the same sentence without the 

alleged errors. United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 2011). 

We will assume without deciding that the district court committed plain error 

by not giving more of an explanation. This appeal will turn on whether there 

is enough here to show that there is not a reasonable probability that the 

district court would have imposed supervised release if it had explained itself 

in more detail. 

We look to the record to see if the particular facts and circumstances 

of the defendant’s case warrant supervised release for additional deterrence

and protection. See Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d at 607. Here, the record 

shows supervised release was warranted. Dominguez-Mendoza has three 

prior aggravated driving-under-the-influence convictions, with probation on

Case: 21-50502 Document: 00516235067 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/11/2022
No. 21-50502

5

his second conviction being revoked. He also has children living in the 

United States who earlier partly motivated him to re-enter the United States, 

and they could motivate him to return again. These facts and circumstances 

support a need for an added measure of deterrence and protection. See, e.g.,

Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d at 351 (noting Section 5D1.1’s commentary “makes 

clear . . . supervised release remains especially appropriate for defendants 

with lengthy criminal histories”). 

Moreover, the district court ordered supervised release as part of 

adopting the probation officer’s within-Guidelines recommended sentence. 

This raises a presumption that the district court’s sentence was reasonable. 

Cacino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d at 607–08. The presumption was not rebutted.

Even if the district court committed error in failing to give a more 

detailed explanation for imposing supervised release, Dominguez-Mendoza 

has not shown that such an error affected his substantial rights. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50502 Document: 00516235067 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/11/2022