United States of America v. Carlos Ruiz-Aragon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS RUIZ-ARAGON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50543
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01657-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Ruiz-Aragon 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(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 21 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 --

Ruiz-Aragon contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on
clearly erroneous facts and failing to explain adequately 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 shows
that the district court adequately explained its determination that a term of
supervised release was necessary as a deterrent in this particular case. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Contrary to Ruiz-
Aragon’s contention, the court did not presume that the government would not
prosecute him were he to again return illegally, nor did it impose supervised
release in this case based on a “blanket policy.”
Ruiz-Aragon next contends that the term of supervised release is
substantively unreasonable, and that the court unreasonably exercised its discretion
under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) when it expressed its
disagreement with the Guidelines’ recommendation against supervised release for
deportable aliens. In light of Ruiz-Aragon’s immigration and criminal history, the
imposition of a three-year term of supervised release in this case was consistent
with the Guidelines and was not an abuse of discretion. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt.
n.5.
AFFIRMED.
14-50543 2

-- 2 of 2 --