United States v. Vicente Arevelo ( 2013 )

Case: 12-51274 Document: 00512319819 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 24, 2013
No. 12-51274
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
VICENTE EDGARDO AREVELO,
Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:12-CR-395-1
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Vicente Edgardo Arevelo pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea
agreement to illegally reentering the country after having been deported. He
received a within-guidelines sentence of 41 months of imprisonment to be
followed by three years of supervised release. Arevelo challenges the
substantive reasonableness of his supervised release term. He contends that the
district court did not account for the guidance set out in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c)
related to the imposition of supervised release on a deportable alien, a factor
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 12-51274 Document: 00512319819 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2013
No. 12-51274
that, he contends, should have received significant weight. Because Arevelo did
not object to his sentence in the district court, our review is for plain error only.
See United States v. Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d 601, 605 (5th Cir. 2013).
For a defendant who is an alien likely to be deported after serving his
prison sentence, the Guidelines advise that the “court ordinarily should not
impose a term of supervised release.” U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). However, this
guidance is hortatory, not mandatory. United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado,
695 F.3d 324, 329 (5th Cir. 2012).
Where a defendant, like Arevelo, receives a within-guidelines sentence, we
presume that it is reasonable, Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d at 607, and infer that
the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors, United States v.
Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). Arevelo has not overcome the
presumption of reasonableness or the inference that the district court considered
§ 5D1.1(c)’s guidance, especially because the presentence report apprised the
court of this advice and the court emphasized that it took into account relevant
policy statements. Accordingly, Arevelo has not established that the court erred,
plainly or otherwise, in imposing a term of supervised release.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2