FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 11 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50032
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-03035-BTM-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ISAAC RODRIGUEZ-LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Isaac Rodriguez-Lopez appeals from the district’s court’s judgment and
challenges the three-year term of supervised release imposed following his
conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952
and 960. 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).
Rodriguez-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to provide any explanation for why it was imposing a term of supervised
release and failing to explain why it was imposing supervised release despite
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), which provides that courts “ordinarily should not impose a
term of supervised release in a case in which supervised release is not required by
statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after
imprisonment.” Because Rodriguez-Lopez did not object in the district court, we
review for plain error. United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir.
2008). The district court provided a number of reasons for imposing a sentence of
51 months in prison and three years of supervised release, including a need for
deterrence. Thus, there was no plain error. See id.; see also United States v.
Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 329-30 (5th Cir. 2012) (holding that
explanation for imposing term of supervised release was adequate where neither
the parties nor the district court mentioned § 5D1.1 and the district court simply
stated that it “gave the sentence after looking at the factors in 3553(a), to deter
future criminal conduct, his particular background and characteristics”); United
States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012) (reviewing district
court’s explanation in Dominguez-Alvarado and approving of the Fifth Circuit’s
reasoning in that case).
2
Rodriguez-Lopez also challenges the term of supervised release as
substantively unreasonable. We review the sentence under an abuse of discretion
standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court did
not abuse its discretion. The term of supervised release is not substantively
unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors, including Rodriguez-Lopez’s importation of a large quantity of
methamphetamine, the district court’s departure when imposing the term of
imprisonment, and the resulting need to provide adequate deterrence. See Gall,
552 U.S. at 51; Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d at 692-93; see also U.S.S.G. 5D1.1(c)
cmt. n. 5 (providing that district court should consider imposing terms of
supervised release on deportable alien if it determines that supervised release
would provide added measure of deterrence).
AFFIRMED.
3