United States v. Jose Castillo

MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Castillo appeals the revocation of his supervised release. Castillo admitted that he failed to submit urine samples for drug testing, as required by the terms of his supervised release. The district court revoked Castillo’s supervised release and imposed a custodial sentence of six months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a further two-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Castillo alleges numerous constitutional challenges to the system of supervised release. Castillo also argues that his release revocation sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

We have considered all of Castillo’s constitutional claims and conclude that they are meritless. Castillo did not raise his constitutional claims in the district court, so we review them for plain error. See United States v. Bell, 770 F.3d 1253, 1256 (9th Cir.2014). Most of Castillo’s constitutional challenges are answered by the fact, long recognized in our circuit, that a term of supervised release is part of, the sentence imposed for the underlying offense. See United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir.2006). A supervised releasee is not analogous to a criminal defendant; a releasee has…