United States v. Gerson Aplicano-Oyuela
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11649
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Aplicano, Honduran citizen, illegally reentered the U.S. after removal following a felony conviction.
- District court sentenced him to 16 months’ imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),(b)(1).
- PSR recommended 2-year supervised release despite guidelines generally discouraging it for removable aliens under § 5D1.1(c).
- Aplicano submitted plea letter acknowledging voluntary guilty plea and that maximum penalty includes 3 years of supervised release.
- At sentencing, the court affirmed the PSR, explained the deterrence rationale, and imposed 16 months’ imprisonment with a 3-year term of supervised release.
- Aplicano challenges the three-year term as procedurally and substantively unreasonable and claims Rule 11 advice was inadequate regarding supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of supervised release term | Aplicano argues the court failed to adequately explain deviation from 5D1.1(c). | Aplicano (the defendant) contends the court did not provide sufficient rationale for imposing supervised release despite 5D1.1(c). | No procedural error; court considered 5D1.1(c) and § 3553(a) factors and concluded deterrence warranted. |
| Substantive reasonableness of the term | The three-year term is unnecessary and overly harsh given removable-alien policy. | Court reasonably concluded additional deterrence and public protection justified supervised release. | Term is substantively reasonable within the Guidelines and justified by deterrence and protection goals. |
| Rule 11 and plea proceedings adequacy | Rule 11 required oral explanation of supervised release; plea letter cannot substitute for understanding. | Written plea letter and interpreter-assisted explanation sufficed to show understanding; no substantial error. | No reversible Rule 11 error; no reasonable probability that plea would have been withdrawn absent the alleged error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (requires explanation for harsh or deviant sentences; plain error standard applied)
- Dominguez-Alvarado v. United States, 695 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2012) (ordinarily should not impose supervised release on removable aliens, but may in certain cases)
- Alvarado v. United States, 720 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2013) (courts may impose supervised release if added deterrence is shown; considers § 3553(a) factors)
- Thorne v. United States, 153 F.3d 130 (4th Cir. 1998) (Rule 11; written plea agreements cannot substitute for oral explanation of supervised release)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error test requires 3 elements to remedy error)