United States v. Villalona ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40354
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FERNANDO VILLALONA, also known as Quirson Eloy Gonzalez-Avalo,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:01-CR-256-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In June 2001, Fernando Villalona was convicted upon pleading
guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and was sentenced to
a prison term and three years of supervised release. The
district court imposed as conditions of supervised release that
Villalona not commit another crime and that he not illegally
reenter the United States. The district court revoked
Villalona’s supervised release in January 2006, and imposed a
further term of imprisonment because Villalona was again found in
the United States illegally during his supervised release term.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 06-40354
-2-
Villalona appeals from the revocation, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion because he did not receive
the statutory written notice of the conditions of supervised
release required by 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(f) and 3603(1). He further
argues that the district court’s admonishment at the sentencing
hearing regarding the terms of his supervised release did not
constitute actual notice because it was not “clear and specific.”
The record shows that the district court correctly informed
Villalona of the conditions of his supervised release. The
sentencing transcript reflects that a court interpreter was
present during the sentencing proceedings. Villalona expressed
no confusion at sentencing in response to the district court’s
explicit imposition of the supervised release conditions.
Villalona’s self-serving assertion that he did not understand the
district court’s admonishment because he does not speak English
is insufficient to reverse the district court’s judgment. See
United States v. Devine, 934 F.2d 1325, 1335 (5th Cir. 1991).
Because Villalona had actual notice of the conditions of his
supervised release, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by revoking Villalona’s supervised release. See
United States v. Arbizu, 431 F.3d 469, 471 (5th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.