facts of this case indicate that the custodial sentence was not a factor in the district

court’s decision to sentence Appellant to three years of supervised release.

3 19-50202 Appellant thus fails to show any prejudice suffered from the district court’s

Guidelines Range calculation. Id. Consequently, the challenge to Appellant’s

custodial term fails.

II. Appellant’s challenge to the length of supervised release also fails.

Appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion in imposing

three years of supervised release because the Sentencing Guidelines suggest that

“[t]he court ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release in a case in

which supervised release is not required by statute and the defendant is a

deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment.” U.S.S.G. §

5D1.1(c) (emphasis added). There is no dispute that Appellant is a deportable

alien. Application Note 5 of the Sentencing Guidelines § 5D1.1 states that courts

should “consider imposing a term of supervised release on such a defendant if the

court determines it would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection

based on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.” See also United States v.

Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012).

Here, the district court provided a particularized explanation justifying the

imposition of supervised release when it listed Appellant’s aggravating and

mitigating factors at the sentencing hearing as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c).

The district court noted the length of Appellant’s criminal history from 2002 to

2019 as an aggravating factor. Next, the district court noted that Appellant’s

4 19-50202 criminal history was old, and Appellant appeared to have rehabilitated himself

after his past violent crimes. Finally, the district court noted that, while Appellant’s

criminal history was old, he did attempt to illegally re-enter the United States

numerous times. Ultimately, the district court decided that because of Appellant’s

attempts to re-enter the country illegally, the added safeguard of supervised release

was necessary despite the suggestion of Sentencing Guideline § 5D1.1(c).

Lastly, it is well established that the Sentencing Guidelines are merely

advisory. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 246 (2005). The district court

was not bound by the suggestions of the Sentencing Guidelines as Appellant

suggests. Consequently, Appellant’s challenge to the imposition of supervised

release fails.

AFFIRMED.

5 19-50202