United States of America v. Alfredo Mendoza-Alvarez

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALFREDO MENDOZA-ALVAREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30186
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-02140-FVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Mendoza-Alvarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 27-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mendoza-Alvarez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
FILED
OCT 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-30186 2
failing to consider and explain why a new term of supervised release was
warranted in light of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) (2011), which directs that a district court
ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release if the defendant is a
deportable alien. The record reflects that the district court considered section
5D1.1(c) and adequately explained why it declined to follow it. Contrary to
Mendoza-Alvarez’s contention, no written statement of reasons was required
because the district court imposed a term of supervised release within the
Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(g)(2); United
States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012) (“no departure
analysis is triggered” by the imposition of supervised release because section
5D1.1(c) is not mandatory).
Mendoza-Alvarez also challenges the term of supervised release as
substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing a 27-month term of supervised release. See Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d
at 692. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Mendoza-Alvarez’s numerous prior deportations. See id. at 692-93; see also
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) cmt. n.5 (district court should consider imposing term of
supervised release on deportable alien if it determines supervised release would

-- 2 of 3 --

12-30186 3
provide an added measure of deterrence and protection).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --