Court Opinion

ID: 3065851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-14 22:44:11.762389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:33.455634
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 21 2014

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-50360

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:13-cr-01525-LAB

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JOSE OMAR ACOSTA-ALVAREZ,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                     Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted May 13, 2014**

Before:        CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

       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

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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. Valencia-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) (“[A]dequate 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.

                                            2                                  13-50360