United States v. Juventino Jaimes-Maciel

648 F. App'x 695

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 18, 2016
• Docket: 15-50014
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Juventino Jaimes-Maciel appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 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.

Jaimes-Maciel contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain its reasons for imposing the three-year teirm of supervised release. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3653(a) sentencing factors when selecting the sentence, and the court’s reasons for imposing the supervised release term are apparent from the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (adequate explanation may be inferred from the presentence report or the record as a whole).

Jaimes-Maciel also contends that the supervised release term is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The three-year term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Jaimes-Maeiel’s criminal history and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n. 5.

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.