Case: 15-11189 Document: 00513706527 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-11189 FILED
Summary Calendar October 5, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ-MARES, also known as Jose Mares,
Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-73-1
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jose Luis Gonzalez-Mares was sentenced to thirty months of
imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release after pleading guilty
to illegal reentry after deportation. He appeals his sentence, contending that
the district court erred in imposing a term of supervised release because he is
a deportable alien and because the record does not support a finding that he
required additional deterrence to reentry. He also challenges his sentence as
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 15-11189 Document: 00513706527 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2016
No. 15-11189
violating the Due Process Clause; however, he correctly concedes that his
argument is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,
226-27 (1998).
Under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1, a “court 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.” § 5D1.1(c) (2015). Because Gonzalez-Mares did not object to
the court’s imposition of a term of supervised release, review is for plain error
only. See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th Cir.
2012). Here, although the district court did not refer to § 5D1.1(c) at
sentencing, it implicitly considered the Guideline when it considered the
presentence report (PSR), which advised the court of § 5D1.1(c) and specified
that Gonzalez-Mares is a deportable alien. See United States v. Cancino-
Trinidad, 710 F.3d 601, 606 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court’s written
findings emphasize this point, explaining that the court imposed a term of
supervised release “because it will provide an added measure of deterrence and
protection based on the facts and circumstances of this case.”
We conclude that the imposition of the term of supervised release in this
case does not rise to the level of plain error. See Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d
at 329-30. In addition, to the extent Gonzalez-Mares contends that the record
does not support a finding that he required additional deterrence, his
argument is unavailing. Indeed, the PSR noted that an upward departure or
variance may be appropriate, given Gonzalez-Mares’s possible involvement in
drug-trafficking activity and fraudulent possession of identification devices.
Gonzalez-Mares has shown no reversible error in the imposition of his
sentence. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2