United States v. Hugo Islas-Hernandez

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 22, 2018
Docket17-50280
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Hugo Islas-Hernandez (United States v. Hugo Islas-Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Hugo Islas-Hernandez, (9th Cir. 2018).

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Jorge Valdavinos-Torres
704 F.3d 679 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Rafael Aldana
878 F.3d 877 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Hugo Islas-Hernandez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hugo-islas-hernandez-ca9-2018.