Court Opinion

ID: 9882146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 16:00:33.824697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:24.719057
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-2401
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                            Luis Alonso Gomez-Celaya

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                  ____________

                          Submitted: September 29, 2023
                             Filed: October 5, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Luis Gomez-Celaya appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to 6 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release.

      1
       The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the revocation
sentence.

       After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not
plainly err by imposing an additional term of supervised release even though Gomez-
Celaya might be deported. See United States v. Hernandez-Loera, 914 F.3d 621, 622
(8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (standard of review; noting that the U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c)
recommendation against imposing a term of supervised release on a defendant subject
to deportation is “hortatory, not mandatory”). We also conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in imposing the revocation sentence. See United States
v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing the substantive reasonable
of a revocation sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
                        ______________________________

                                         -2-