Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio TALAVERA-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-22
Citations: 543 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 12-50225
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio TALAVERA-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio TALAVERA-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50225.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 22, 2013.
Carlos Arguello, II, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Harini P. Raghupathi, Esquire, Federal Defenders Of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Antonio Talavera-Ruiz appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 42-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Talavera-Ruiz first contends that the district court relied on impermissible factors, namely the costs of prosecution and incarceration, when it imposed his custodial sentence. Taken in context, the district court's references to the costs of prosecution and incarceration related to its consideration of deterring future crimes. These references are not inconsistent with United States v. Tapia-Romero, 523 F.3d 1125, 1126 (9th Cir.2008), which precludes district courts from weighing the costs of incarceration in favor of shorter sentence, not from considering the costs associated with recidivism. The record makes clear that the court properly based the sentence on the need to deter Talavera-Ruiz from committing future crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B).
Talavera-Ruiz next contends that the district court procedurally erred in imposing a term of supervised release in light of U.S.S.G. § 5Dl.l(c) (2011), which directs that a district court ordinarily should not impose supervised release if the defendant is a deportable alien. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. Talavera-Ruiz has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the district court given explicit consideration to section 5Dl.l(c). See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir.2008).
Talavera-Ruiz finally contends that the three-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Talavera-Ruiz's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances, including Ta-lavera-Ruiz's multiple prior deportations and violations of the immigration laws. See id.; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n. 5 (district court should consider imposing term of supervised release on deportable alien if it determines supervised release would provide an added measure of deterrence).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.