Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio ALBA-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Antonio Alba-Romero appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted unlawful entry by an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325, and 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.
Contrary to Alba-Romero's contention, the district court's oral announcement of a three-year term of supervised release does not require remand. While he is correct that the supervised release term could not exceed one year, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3581(b)(5) and 3583(b)(3), the district court properly corrected its “clear error” by imposing a one-year term in the written judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a); United States v. Colace, 126 F.3d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir. 1997). Alba-Romero's presence was not required for that correction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(4).
Alba-Romero also argues that the district court procedurally erred by imposing a term of supervised release. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court determined supervised release would provide an additional measure of deterrence given Alba-Romero's immigration history and family ties to the United States. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5. Contrary to Alba-Romero's argument, the district court did not rely on any clearly erroneous findings of fact in reaching that conclusion. On this record, Alba-Romero has not shown a reasonable probability of a different sentence absent the cumulative impact of the district court's alleged procedural errors in imposing supervised release. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 1993) (cumulative impact of possible plain errors is reviewed for plain error).
AFFIRMED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-50063
Decided: February 22, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)