United States of America v. Jose Omar Acosta-Alvarez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE OMAR ACOSTA-ALVAREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50360
D.C. No. 3:13-cr-01525-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jose Omar Acosta-Alvarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 36-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in
FILED
MAY 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Acosta-Alvarez contends that the district court committed procedural error
by failing to explain adequately either the extent of its variance from the advisory
Sentencing Guidelines or its imposition of a term of supervised release. Contrary
to Acosta-Alvarez’s argument, we review for plain error because he did not assert
these objections in the district court. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court sufficiently explained the
sentence, including the supervised release term. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]dequate explanation in some cases
may . . . be inferred from . . . the record as a whole.”).
Acosta-Alvarez also contends that the three-year term of supervised release
is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing supervised release. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d
679, 692 (9th Cir. 2012). The three-year term is not substantively unreasonable in
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and Acosta-Alvarez’s criminal
and immigration history. See id. at 692-93; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5.
AFFIRMED.
13-50360 2

-- 2 of 2 --