United States v. Jesus Mesa-Soto , 696 F. App'x 257 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 16-10276
16-10278
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 4:15-cr-01927-CKJ
v. 4:13-cr-02023-CKJ
JESUS MESA-SOTO,
MEMORANDUM *
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Mesa-Soto challenges the three-year
term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Mesa-Soto contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain adequately the three-year term of supervised release. Because Mesa-Soto
failed to raise this alleged procedural error below, we review for plain error. See
United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). After
hearing arguments regarding Mesa-Soto’s criminal history and prior removal from
the United States, the district court specifically considered U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) and
determined that a term of supervised release would provide added deterrence. The
record as a whole reflects the basis for the district court’s determination, and the
district court did not plainly err in its explanation. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]dequate explanation in some cases
may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.”).
Mesa-Soto further contends that the term of supervised release is
substantively unreasonable in light of his intent to reunite with his family in
Mexico following his release from custody and his lack of family ties in the United
States. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Mesa-Soto’s
criminal history and multiple prior removal from the United States. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Valdavinos-Torres,
704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-10276 & 16-10278