FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50033
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02757-DMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE ALVARO LOPEZ-LEON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alvaro Lopez-Leon appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 12-month custodial sentence and two-year term of supervised
release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien
found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lopez-Leon contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
address adequately his mitigation arguments, and by relying on clearly erroneous
facts at sentencing. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-
Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record
reflects that the district court properly addressed Lopez-Leon’s mitigation
arguments, and he has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have
received a different sentence absent the district court’s allegedly erroneous factual
findings. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
Lopez-Leon also contends that the district court failed to consider the proper
factors when determining whether to impose supervised release, and that it failed
to explain adequately why it imposed supervised release. These contentions are
belied by the record, which reflects that the district court considered the proper
factors and explained that it imposed supervised release as an added measure of
deterrence in light of Lopez-Leon’s criminal and immigration history. See
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5 (district court should consider imposing term of
supervised release on deportable alien if it determines supervised release would
provide an added measure of deterrence and protection).
Lopez-Leon finally contends that both his custodial sentence and term of
2 14-50033
supervised release are substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing Lopez-Leon’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines custodial sentence and the two-year
term of supervised release are substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.; see also
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-50033