UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ELISEO CESPEDES VARGAS (2017)

Eliseo Cespedes-Vargas appeals his three-year term of supervised release (“SR”). He contends that it is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not account for the Sentencing Commission's recommenda-tion in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) that ordinarily no term of SR should be imposed on deportable aliens. Because Cespedes-Vargas did not object to the imposition of SR, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 328 (5th Cir. 2012).

Under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1, a “court ordinarily should not impose a term of [SR] in a case in which [SR] is not required by statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment.” § 5D1.1(c). Section 5D1.1(c) is advisory, and a district court discharges its duties under § 5D1.1(c) by considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors of deterrence and protection and by imposing a reasoned and individualized sentence under the circumstances. United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 350−51 (5th Cir. 2013); Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 329.

Although the district court did not give specific reasons for imposing SR, it pointed out that Cespedes-Vargas had two prior convictions, including a serious felony conviction and an immigration offense; that he had been deported twice; and that he had returned to the United States shortly after his last deportation in 2014. The court's statements indicate that it was concerned about deterring Cespedes-Vargas from returning to the United States. Cespedes-Vargas's “criminal record support[ed] a finding that the imposition of [SR] would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances” of the case. United States v. Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d 601, 607 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omit-ted). Further, Cespedes-Vargas has not shown that any error affected his substantial rights. See id. at 607−08; see also United States v. Garcia-Lemus, 509 F. App'x 324, 324 (5th Cir. 2013). Because the district court stated that the sentence was appropriate under the § 3553(a) factors, the imposition of SR was not clear or obvious error. See Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d at 349, 351; Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 329−30; see also § 5D1.1, comment. (n.5).

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM:*