USA v. Javier Mendez-Perez

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12681
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cr-00016-RV-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAVIER MENDEZ-PEREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(February 5, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12681 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Javier Mendez-Perez appeals his sentence of 3 years’ supervised release,
after pleading guilty to one count of unlawful reentry of a deported alien, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1).1 On appeal, Mendez-Perez argues that
the district court abused its discretion and procedurally erred by imposing a term of
supervised release. He contends that the district court “offered no explanation
whatsoever” for the 3-year term of supervised release. He argues that because his
case is ordinary it should be governed by U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) and that no need
exists for the additional deterrent provided by supervised release.
We review the district court’s imposition of supervised release for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1087 (11th Cir. 2003). Where
the defendant is an alien likely to be deported after imprisonment, the district court
should not ordinarily impose a term of supervised release. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c).
According to the application notes to § 5D1.1, the need to afford adequate
deterrence and to protect the public ordinarily is adequately served by a new
prosecution. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1, comment. (n. 5). However, the district court
should consider imposing a term of supervised release where the court finds that it
would “provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts
and circumstances of a particular case.” Id.
1 Mendez-Perez also received a prison term of 27 months. That term is not appealed.
Case: 15-12681 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Mendez-Perez’s three-year supervised release sentence is reasonable.
Mendez-Perez’s argument that the district court abused its discretion because it
offered “no reason whatsoever” for imposing a three-year term of supervised
release is without basis. During the sentencing hearing, the court clearly
considered Mendez-Perez’s recidivism and the need to deter him from attempting
to reenter the United States when imposing the supervised release sentence. In
light of Mendez-Perez’s multiple illegal reentries into the United States,2 the
district court reasonably concluded that this was an unordinary case that required
an extra measure of deterrence. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1, comment. (n. 5). Mendez-
Perez’s sentence is, accordingly,
AFFIRMED.
2 According to the presentence investigation report, Mendez-Perez was first convicted of an immigration violation
on March 28, 1998, in the Southern District of Texas. He was sentenced to three-years unsupervised probation and
deported to Mexico. Between 2003 and 2011, he was arrested in by state law enforcement in Florida and Louisiana
and deported to Mexico on at least three occasions, the last occurring on February 6, 2011. Presentence Report at ¶
12.
Case: 15-12681 Date Filed: 02/05/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --