Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Omar ACOSTA-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-21
Citations: 574 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: No. 13-50360
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Omar ACOSTA-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 574
Pages: 786–786

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Omar ACOSTA-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50360.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 21, 2014.
Faith Aline Devine, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sandra Resnick, El Cajon, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, 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
Jose Omar Acosta-Alvarez appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed 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.
Acosta-Alvarez contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to explain adequately either the extent of its variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines or its imposition of a term of supervised release. Contrary to Acosta-Alvarez's argument, we review for plain error because he did not assert these objections in the district court. See United States v. Valencias-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n. 3 (9th Cir.2010). The district court sufficiently explained the sentence, including the supervised release term. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) ("[AJdequate explanation in some cases may . be inferred from . the record as a whole.").
Acosta-Alvarez also contends that the three-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing supervised release. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692 (9th Cir.2012). The three-year term is not substantively unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and Acosta-Alvarez's criminal and immigration history. See id. at 692-93; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n. 5.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.