United States v. Manuel Arzate-Arzate

Case: 18-50540 Document: 00514903393 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-50540 April 4, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MANUEL HUMBERTO ARZATE-ARZATE, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:18-CR-85-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Manuel Humberto Arzate-Arzate pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States, and the district court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 21 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Arzate- Arzate appeals the imposition of supervised release.

Noting that he was a deportable alien who was likely to be deported after imprisonment, he argues that the district court failed to consider Case: 18-50540 Document: 00514903393 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2019

No. 18-50540 U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) and failed to give an explanation for imposing supervised release in his case. According to Arzate-Arzate, the district court also incorrectly calculated his guidelines range for supervised release, which he contends should have been zero to three years pursuant to § 5D1.1(c).

Because Arzate-Arzate did not object to the calculation of the guidelines range or the imposition of supervised release, plain error review applies. See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 328 (5th Cir. 2012). The district court did not err in calculating the guidelines range for supervised release, as the instruction in § 5D1.1(c) is advisory only and did not cause the low end of Arzate-Arzate’s guidelines range for supervised release to become zero. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(2); Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 329.

Additionally, the district court’s comments at sentencing provided a sufficiently particularized explanation of the decision to impose supervised release. See United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347, 350-51 (5th Cir. 2013); Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d at 329-30.

AFFIRMED.