UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4165
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MAURICIO ANTONIO REYES CRUZ, a/k/a Mauricio Antonio Reyes-
Cruz, a/k/a Mauricio Reyes-Cruz, a/k/a Mauricio Antonio
Reyes, a/k/a Mauricio Reyes,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00479-AJT-1)
Submitted: August 8, 2013 Decided: August 22, 2013
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Brooke Sealy
Rupert, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Nicholas J. Xenakis,
Research and Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Dina
Finkel, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mauricio Reyes Cruz pled guilty to illegally
re-entering the United States after conviction for an aggravated
felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2006), and was
sentenced to twenty months’ imprisonment and a three-year term
of supervised release. On appeal, Reyes Cruz contends that the
district court plainly erred by imposing a term of supervised
release as part of his sentence. We affirm.
Reyes Cruz concedes that the standard of review for
his sentence is plain error because he is raising this issue for
the first time on appeal. United States v. Maxwell, 285 F.3d
336, 339 (4th Cir. 2002) (providing review standard for plain
error). The Guidelines ordinarily counsel against imposing a
term of supervised release for someone who is a deportable
alien. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 5D1.1(c) (2011). Nonetheless, courts are encouraged to
consider imposing a term of supervised release on a deportable
alien if the court determines that such an imposition would
provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on
the facts and circumstances of a particular case. See USSG
§ 5D1.1 cmt. n.5. Here, the district court explicitly stated
that its primary concern in imposing a sentence was to deter
Reyes Cruz from illegally re-entering the United States, given
Reyes Cruz’s previous illegal re-entry and his criminal history
2
while in the United States. To that end, the district court
explained that it was imposing a term of supervised release so
that, were Reyes Cruz to illegally re-enter the United States,
he would be violating both a criminal statute and the conditions
of his supervised release, with an attendant increase in the
period of incarceration to which he would be subject. Because
adding this element of deterrence was well within the district
court’s broad discretion, we conclude that the imposition of a
term of supervised release was not plain error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3