United States v. Hugo Islas-Hernandez

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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