United States of America v. Antonio Alvarez-Moreno, a.k.a. Antonio Alvarez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO ALVAREZ-MORENO, a.k.a.
Antonio Alvarez,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 18-10047
18-10049
D.C. Nos. 2:17-cr-01402-GMS
2:17-cr-00460-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Antonio Alvarez-Moreno appeals the sentence
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and revocation of his supervised release. 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
SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-10047 & 18-10049
In Appeal No. 18-10047, Alvarez-Moreno contends that the district court
procedurally erred by imposing a three-year term of supervised release without
explicitly addressing U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), which states that the court ordinarily
should not impose supervised release when the defendant is a deportable alien who
likely will be deported after imprisonment. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude
that there is none. The record makes clear that, even if the court had explicitly
acknowledged the Guidelines provision at issue, it would have imposed the same
three-year term of supervised release given its concerns about the need to deter
Alvarez-Moreno. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; United States v. Dallman, 533
F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008) (no plain error where a defendant cannot show “a
reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence” absent the
alleged error).
Alvarez-Moreno next argues that the district court imposed inappropriate,
unlawful, or vague supervised release conditions. The district court did not plainly
err. See United States v. Garcia, 522 F.3d 855, 860 (9th Cir. 2008). Given
Alvarez-Moreno’s representation that he was pursuing legal status in the United
States, the district court imposed conditions that were reasonably related to
“deterrence, protection of the public, or rehabilitation.” United States v. Watson,
582 F.3d 974, 982 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation omitted). Further,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-10047 & 18-10049
contrary to Alvarez-Moreno’s contentions, the challenged conditions are not “so
vague that [they] fail[] to provide people of ordinary intelligence with fair notice of
what is prohibited.” United States v. Sims, 849 F.3d 1259, 1260 (9th Cir. 2017).
In Appeal No. 18-10049, Alvarez-Moreno appeals the judgment revoking
his supervised release. No term of supervised release was imposed in those
proceedings, and Alvarez-Moreno does not challenge any aspect of the revocation
or the four-month consecutive custodial sentence imposed upon revocation. Thus,
any challenge to the judgment revoking supervised release is waived. See United
States v. Loya, 807 F.2d 1483, 1486-87 (9th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --