gno.law

United States v. Hugo Islas-Hernandez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 17-50280 · 2018-05-22 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Larry Alan Burns (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
criminal

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos.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

Cites, in this corpus