United States of America v. Andres Reyes-Quintero, a.k.a. Andres Reyes-Quintana

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANDRES REYES-QUINTERO, a.k.a.
Andres Reyes-Quintana,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50095
D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02825-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Andres Reyes-Quintero appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-
plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation
of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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).
FILED
FEB 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-50095
Reyes-Quintero contends that the district court procedurally erred by
misinterpreting U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), improperly varying under Kimbrough v.
United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), and failing to both calculate the Guidelines
range for and explain why it selected a high-end term of supervised release. We
review for plain error, United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108
(9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is none. The district court properly applied
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 when it determined, based on Reyes-Quintero’s particular
circumstances, that a term of supervised release would provide an added measure
of deterrence. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; United States v. Castro-Verdugo,
750 F.3d 1065, 1072 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, we do not reach Reyes-Quintero’s
arguments that the court improperly relied on Kimbrough to reject the Guidelines’
instruction regarding the “ordinary” case involving a deportable alien.
Moreover, the record reflects that the district court was aware of the
applicable supervised release Guidelines range, which was calculated correctly in
the presentence report, and the court’s reasons for selecting a high-end 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 record as a
whole). Reyes-Quintero has not shown a reasonable probability that he would
have received a different sentence had the district court explicitly calculated the
Guidelines range or provided a more thorough explanation for the three-year term.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-50095
See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --