Court Opinion

ID: 4277480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-22 20:00:33.04856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:10.138019
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 22 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       Nos. 17-50279
                                                     17-50280
                Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                D.C. Nos. 3:17-cr-00921-LAB
 v.                                                       3:17-cr-07078-LAB

HUGO ISLAS-HERNANDEZ,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                             Submitted May 15, 2018**

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

      In these consolidated appeals, Hugo Islas-Hernandez appeals his jury-trial

conviction for unlawful entry by an alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325, the one-

year term of supervised release imposed following his conviction, the revocation of

his supervised release, and the ten-month term of supervised release imposed

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
following the revocation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

      As Islas-Hernandez acknowledges, his challenge to his conviction and

supervised release revocation based on the contention that there was insufficient

evidence that he entered the United States at a “place other than as designated by

immigration officers,” 8 U.S.C.§ 1325(a)(1), is foreclosed by this court’s decision

in United States v. Aldana, 878 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2017).

      Islas-Hernandez also contends that the district court plainly erred by

imposing supervised release terms because U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 recommends

supervision only when it is an additional deterrent beyond the threat of a new

prosecution. We disagree. The record reflects that the court understood the

Guideline and acted consistently with it when, after noting Islas-Hernandez’s

immigration history, it imposed supervised release terms as an additional

deterrent. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704
F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2012).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                          17-50279 & 17-50280