UNITED STATES v. GODINEZ HERRERA (2019)

William Rodolfo Godinez-Herrera (“Godinez-Herrera”) pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to illegal reentry or removal subsequent to a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (2012). The district court sentenced Godinez-Herrera to 16 months in prison to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. Godinez-Herrera appeals, challenging the reasonableness of the imposition of a term of supervised release. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Godinez-Herrera contends that the district court erred in imposing a term of supervised release because he is a deportable alien and that the court further erred in failing to adequately explain the supervised release sentence. Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.1(c) (2016), a district court “ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release in a case in which supervised release is not required by statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment.” Id. However, the Advisory Notes clarify that the district court should “consider imposing a term of supervised release on such a defendant if the court determines it would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.” USSG § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5.

Here, the district court and the parties recognized that Godinez-Herrera would be deported, and the presentence report had expressly referenced USSG § 5D1.1(c), but no objection was made to the imposition of a term of supervised release. We therefore review for plain error Godinez-Herrera’s challenge to the imposition of a supervised release term. United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 422 (4th Cir. 2015).

The imposition of a term of supervised release on a deportable alien is reasonable if the “sentencing court (1) is aware of Guidelines section 5D1.1(c); (2) considers a defendant’s specific circumstances and the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [ (2012) ] factors; and (3) determines that additional deterrence is needed.” Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d at 424 (citing United States v. Alvarado, 720 F.3d 153, 159 (2d Cir. 2013)). We have reviewed the record with these standards in mind and find that the district court did not plainly err in imposing a term of supervised release on this defendant.

Accordingly, we affirm Godinez-Herrera’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.