United States v. Carrasco-Cortez

Case: 22-50841 Document: 00516734246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50841

Summary Calendar FILED ____________ May 2, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Pablo Carrasco-Cortez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:22-CR-59-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Pablo Carrasco-Cortez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry following deportation. He was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 30 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Carrasco-Cortez argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain its reasons for imposing supervised Case: 22-50841 Document: 00516734246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2023

No. 22-50841 release in light of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), which provides that supervised release should “ordinarily” not be imposed where, as here, it is not required by statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who is likely to be deported. Our review is for plain error. See United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Mondragon– Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009)). Carrasco-Cortez’s criminal history, which includes several convictions for illegal reentry, supports the imposition of supervised release. See United States v. Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d 601, 606-07 (5th Cir. 2013). 1 Additionally, because Carrasco-Cortez has failed to show “a reasonable probability that, but for the district court’s misapplication of the Guidelines, he would have received a lesser sentence,” any error did not affect his substantial rights. Id. at 606 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, he has not shown plain error, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.