United States v. Jorge De La Rosa-Rangel , 509 F. App'x 315 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-41406       Document: 00512126656         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/28/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    January 28, 2013
    No. 11-41406
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    JORGE DE LA ROSA-RANGEL,
    Defendant - Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 2:11-CR-758-1
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Pursuant to his guilty plea, Jorge De La Rosa-Rangel was convicted for
    being an alien present in the United States after having been deported, in
    violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a) and (b)(1), and received 19 months’ imprisonment
    and three years’ supervised release. Contesting his sentence, De La Rosa
    contends the district court: erred procedurally by imposing supervised release
    without explanation or notice of its intent to depart from Guideline § 5D1.1(c)
    (supervised release ordinarily not necessary for deportable alien); and imposed
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-41406     Document: 00512126656       Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/28/2013
    No. 11-41406
    a substantively unreasonable sentence by failing to consider or account for the
    Guideline.
    Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and
    a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for
    reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must
    still properly calculate the Guideline-sentencing range for use in deciding on the
    sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). In that respect,
    for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed
    de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-
    Gutierrez, 
    517 F.3d 751
    , 764 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Villegas, 
    404 F.3d 355
    , 359 (5th Cir. 2005).
    Because De La Rosa failed, however, to present in district court his
    contentions regarding his sentence, review is only for plain error. E.g., United
    States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 
    695 F. 3d 324
    , 327 (5th Cir. 2012). For reversible
    plain error, De La Rosa must show a clear or obvious error that affected his
    substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 
    556 U.S. 129
    , 135 (2009). He fails
    to do so for each issue raised here.
    Regarding the claimed procedural error, because the district court failed
    to account for § 5D1.1(c) in imposing supervised release, it committed clear or
    obvious error. E.g., United States v. Blocker, 
    612 F.3d 413
    , 416 (5th Cir. 2010)
    (straightforward misapplication of Guidelines constitutes clear or obvious error).
    But, De La Rosa fails to show the error affected his substantial rights.
    Imposition of supervised release under § 5D1.1(c) is discretionary, and
    “departure analysis” is not triggered where, as here, the district court imposes
    supervised release within the statutory and advisory Guidelines sentencing
    range for the offense. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 329. The district court
    determined supervised release was warranted as an added measure of deterrence
    because De La Rosa had two illegal-reentry convictions. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) cmt.5
    2
    Case: 11-41406     Document: 00512126656     Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/28/2013
    No. 11-41406
    (supervised release may be imposed on deportable alien for added measure of
    deterrence).
    Regarding substantive reasonableness, De La Rosa contends the court
    erroneously failed to account for § 5D1.1(c). Again, in the light of the facts and
    circumstances of De La Rosa’s case, the court imposed supervised release. For
    the reasons stated above, including the supervised-release term’s being within
    the statutory and advisory Guidelines sentencing range for the offense, De La
    Rosa does not show reversible plain error. United States v. Mares, 
    402 F.3d 511
    ,
    519 (5th Cir. 2005).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-41406

Citation Numbers: 509 F. App'x 315

Judges: Barksdale, Davis, Elrod, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/28/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023