USA v. Cesar Dorado-Avila, No. 09-50535 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JAN 05 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-50535 D.C. No. 5:07-cr-00118-SGL v. MEMORANDUM * CESAR DORADO-AVILA, a.k.a. Cesar Avila, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen G. Larson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Cesar Dorado-Avila appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his 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 * 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment. Dorado-Avila contends the district court plainly erred by imposing conditions of supervised release concerning drugs and alcohol. It was not plain error for the district court to impose a mandatory condition of supervised release requiring Dorado-Avila to refrain from unlawful use of a controlled substance and submit to drug testing, see 18 U.S.C. § 3563(a)(5); United States v. Carter, 159 F.3d 397, 399-400 (9th Cir. 1998), or to impose a standard discretionary condition requiring Dorado-Avila to refrain from excessive use of alcohol or the use, possession, distribution or administration of controlled substances without a prescription, see 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(7). Any error regarding these conditions did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. See United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 996 (9th Cir. 2006). 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 incorrect reference to section 1326(b). 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 judgment. 2 09-50535
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.
