United States v. Gonzalez-Acuna

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-50926 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ August 19, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce

United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Alejandro Gonzalez-Acuna,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:25-CR-1325-1

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Alejandro Gonzalez-Acuna pleaded guilty to illegal reentry of the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) (criminalizing conduct). He challenges his above-Guidelines 24-months’ imprisonment sentence with three-years’ supervised release. He contends, for the first time on appeal, that: his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable;

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

No. 25-50926

and the court erred in imposing a term of supervised release on him, a deportable alien. (Gonzalez also asserts, but only in passing, that the district court relied improperly upon retributive sentencing factors while imposing a term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) (enumerating permissible factors). By failing to properly brief this contention, he abandoned it. E.g., United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446–47 (5th Cir. 2010).)

Because Gonzalez did not preserve the above three issues in district court, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Gonzalez must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. (citation omitted).

Turning first to Gonzalez’ procedural-unreasonableness challenge, he contends the court failed to sufficiently explain his upward-variance sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007) (requiring courts to “adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing”). Assuming arguendo that the court failed to adequately explain his sentence, he fails to show such error “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings”. Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135 (citation omitted). Accordingly, he fails to show his sentence affects his substantial rights. Id.

Next, Gonzalez challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. As before, we review for plain error; Gonzalez raised a general challenge to his sentence, but not the precise contention he now makes. See United States v. Zarco-Beiza, 24 F.4th 477, 481–82 (5th Cir. 2022) (requiring

3

No. 25-50926

detailed objection to preserve precise substantive-reasonableness assertion). He fails to show: any “factor that should have received significant weight”; the court gave “significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor”; or that the sentence “represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors”. United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432, 440 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). As such, he fails to show the requisite clear-or-obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

For the third and final issue, our plain-error review of the imposition of supervised release on Gonzalez—again, a deportable defendant—without providing an individualized justification, Guideline § 5D1.1(c) provides: “The 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”. Along that line, “supervised release should not be imposed [on a deportable defendant] absent a determination that supervised release would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts and circumstances of a particular case”. United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 329 (5th Cir. 2012). The court considered Gonzalez’ criminal history and likelihood of recidivism (he had, inter alia, five prior removals without prosecution), showing the court likely imposed the supervised release term as “an added measure of deterrence”. Id.; E.g., United States v. Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d 601, 606–07 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding deportable defendant’s “criminal record support[ed] a finding that the imposition of [supervised release] would provide an added measure of deterrence” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, even assuming a clear-or-obvious error, he fails to show the imposition of supervised release without an individualized justification affects his substantial rights. See id. at 606 (“A sentencing error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if he can show a reasonable probability that, but for the district court’s misapplication of the Guidelines, he would

4

No. 25-50926

have received a lesser sentence.” (citation omitted)); Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 327–28.

AFFIRMED.