United States of America v. Rosa Alicia Canas

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ROSA ALICIA CANAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50308
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-01077-GW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Alicia Canas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the three-year term of supervised release imposed following her guilty-plea
conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States following
deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-50308 2
§ 1291, and we affirm, but remand with instructions to the district court to enter a
corrected judgment.
Canas contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider and explain why a 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. 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 probation officer’s recommendation in favor of a term of supervised
release and determined that a supervised release term was warranted. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]dequate
explanation in some cases may . . . be inferred from the PSR or the record as a
whole.”).
Canas also challenges the term of supervised release as substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a three-
year term of supervised release. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The term is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the
totality of the circumstances, including the need to deter. See United States v.
Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2012); see also U.S.S.G.

-- 2 of 3 --

12-50308 3
§ 5D1.1(c) cmt. n.5 (district court should consider imposing term of supervised
release on deportable alien if it determines supervised release would provide an
added measure of deterrence and protection).
In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 222 F.3d 1057, 1062
(9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it
delete from the judgment the reference to section 1326(b)(2). See United States v.
Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to
delete the reference to section 1326(b)).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

-- 3 of 3 --