United States v. Carlos Ruiz-Aragon

MEMORANDUM

Carlos Ruiz-Aragon appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Ruiz-Aragon contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on clearly erroneous facts and failing to explain adequately the three-year term of supervised release. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record shows that the district court adequately explained its determination that a term of supervised release was necessary as a deterrent in this particular case. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). .Contrary to Ruiz-Aragon’s contention, the court did not presume that the government would not prosecute him were he to again return illegally, nor did it impose supervised release in this case based on a “blanket policy.”

Ruiz-Aragon next contends that the term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable, and that the court…