United States v. Juventino Jaimes-Maciel
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juventino JAIMES-MACIEL, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Joseph J. Farris (author), Jay S. Bybee, Richard C. Tallman
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50014 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01179-W v. MEMORANDUM* JUVENTINO JAIMES-MACIEL, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 13, 2016** Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Juventino Jaimes-Maciel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty- plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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). Jaimes-Maciel contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain its reasons for imposing the three-year term of supervised release. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when selecting the sentence, and the court’s reasons for imposing the supervised release term are apparent from the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
(adequate explanation may be inferred from the presentence report or the record as a whole).
Jaimes-Maciel also contends that the supervised release term is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The three-year term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Jaimes-Maciel’s criminal history and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-50014