USA V. JOSE ACOSTA-ALVAREZ, No. 13-50360 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-50360 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-01525-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE OMAR ACOSTA-ALVAREZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jose Omar Acosta-Alvarez appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in * 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). the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Acosta-Alvarez contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to explain adequately either the extent of its variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines or its imposition of a term of supervised release. Contrary to Acosta-Alvarez s argument, we review for plain error because he did not assert these objections in the district court. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court sufficiently explained the sentence, including the supervised release term. 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 record as a whole. ). Acosta-Alvarez also contends that the three-year term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing supervised release. See United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692 (9th Cir. 2012). The three-year term is not substantively unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and Acosta-Alvarez s criminal and immigration history. See id. at 692-93; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5. AFFIRMED. 2 13-50360
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
