United States v. Raul Sanchez-Perez , 571 F. App'x 300 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-11228 Document: 00512658048 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-11228
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 10, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RAUL SANCHEZ-PEREZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:13-CR-39-1
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Defendant-Appellant Raul Sanchez-Perez pleaded guilty to illegal
reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court
sentenced Sanchez-Perez within the guidelines range to 50 months of
imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. For the first
time on appeal, Sanchez-Perez argues that the district court erred in imposing
a term of supervised release in a case involving a deportable alien without
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-11228 Document: 00512658048 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
No. 13-11228
providing fact-specific reasons for its decision to deviate from U.S.S.G. §
5D1.1(c)’s recommendation that supervised release not be imposed in such
circumstances. We review this argument for plain error. See United States v.
Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2012).
The district court retains the discretion to impose supervised release in
“uncommon cases [involving a deportable alien] where added deterrence and
protection are needed.” Id. at 329. In sentencing Sanchez-Perez, the district
court specifically stated that supervised release was imposed as an additional
potential sanction should Sanchez-Perez attempt to return illegally.
Consequently, Sanchez-Perez has shown no plain error on the part of the
district court in imposing a term of supervised release. See id. at 329-30; see
also United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 349-51 (5th Cir. 2013).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2