Court Opinion

ID: 2644229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-11-26 21:06:20.707543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:59.626973
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           NOV 26 2013

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 12-10632

                Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00533-JGZ

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
JOEL GUERRA-TAPIA,

                Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                               for the District of Arizona
                     Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge, Presiding**

                            Submitted November 19, 2013***

Before:         CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

       Joel Guerra-Tapia appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea

conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have

            *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
       **
              The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for
the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.
       ***   The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Guerra-Tapia contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

make findings and explain why a term of supervised release was warranted in light

of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(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. Guerra-Tapia has not shown a reasonable probability that he

would have received a different sentence had the district court given explicit

consideration to section 5D1.1(c). See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755,

762 (9th Cir. 2008).

      Guerra-Tapia also contends that the three-year term of supervised release is

substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

imposing Guerra-Tapia’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the

circumstances, including Guerra-Tapia’s multiple prior deportations and criminal

history. See id.; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5 (supervised release for a

deportable alien is appropriate if it would provide an added measure of deterrence

and protection).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                       12-10632