gno.law

United States v. Jose Acosta-Alvarez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-50360 · 2014-05-21 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Omar ACOSTA-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Richard R. Clifton (author), Carlos T. Bea, Paul J. Watford

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2014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

Cites, in this corpus