The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-50014•United States of America v. Juventino Jaimes-Maciel
15-50014Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApr 18, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUVENTINO JAIMES-MACIEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-50014
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01179-W
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Juventino Jaimes-Maciel appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-
plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
APR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
Jaimes-Maciel contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to explain its reasons for imposing the three-year term of supervised release. We
review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when selecting the sentence,
and the court’s reasons for imposing the supervised release term are apparent from
the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
(adequate explanation may be inferred from the presentence report or the record as
a whole).
Jaimes-Maciel also contends that the supervised release term is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The three-year term of supervised release is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and
the totality of the circumstances, including Jaimes-Maciel’s criminal history and
the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1
cmt. n.5.
AFFIRMED.
15-50014 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.