NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 17-50279
17-50280
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 3:17-cr-00921-LAB
v. 3:17-cr-07078-LAB
HUGO ISLAS-HERNANDEZ,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Hugo Islas-Hernandez appeals his jury-trial
conviction for unlawful entry by an alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325, the one-
year term of supervised release imposed following his conviction, the revocation of
his supervised release, and the ten-month term of supervised release imposed
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
following the revocation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
As Islas-Hernandez acknowledges, his challenge to his conviction and
supervised release revocation based on the contention that there was insufficient
evidence that he entered the United States at a “place other than as designated by
immigration officers,” 8 U.S.C.§ 1325(a)(1), is foreclosed by this court’s decision
in United States v. Aldana, 878 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2017).
Islas-Hernandez also contends that the district court plainly erred by
imposing supervised release terms because U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 recommends
supervision only when it is an additional deterrent beyond the threat of a new
prosecution. We disagree. The record reflects that the court understood the
Guideline and acted consistently with it when, after noting Islas-Hernandez’s
immigration history, it imposed supervised release terms as an additional
deterrent. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704
F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-50279 & 17-50280