United States v. Uber Alejandres-Santa Cruz , 535 F. App'x 610 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             AUG 01 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-30301
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:08-cr-02085-WFN
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    UBER ALEJANDRES-SANTA CRUZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Washington
    Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 24, 2013 **
    Before:        ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Uber Alejandres-Santa Cruz appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges the 50-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of
    supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Alejandres-Santa Cruz contends that the district court procedurally erred by
    failing to consider and explain why a new term of supervised release was
    warranted in light of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) (2011), which directs that a district court
    ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release if the defendant is
    deportable. The record reflects that the district court adequately considered section
    5D1.1(c) and explained why it declined to follow it. See Kimbrough v. United
    States, 
    552 U.S. 85
    , 108-10 (2007) (district court has discretion to vary from the
    Guidelines on policy grounds).
    Alejandres-Santa Cruz also challenges the imposition of a new term of
    supervised release as substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse
    its discretion in imposing the sentence. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51
    (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
    circumstances. See id.; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) cmt. n.5 (a deportable alien
    may be subject to term of supervised release if the district court determines that
    under the facts and circumstances of the particular case an added measure of
    deterrence and protection is needed).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                       12-30301
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-30301

Citation Numbers: 535 F. App'x 610

Judges: Alarcón, Clifton, Callahan

Filed Date: 8/1/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024