United States v. Luis Figueroa-Dominguez
675 F. App'x 488
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Luis Miguel Figueroa-Dominguez pled guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1) and received a within-Guidelines sentence that included a three-year term of supervised release.
- He did not object in district court to the imposition of supervised release and raised the issue for the first time on appeal.
- The PSR and Guidelines commentary (U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) and cmt. n.5) advise that supervised release ordinarily should not be imposed on deportable aliens unless the court determines it would provide added deterrence and protection based on the case’s facts.
- On appeal, Figueroa-Dominguez argued the district court failed to make an explicit or implicit finding that supervised release was necessary for deterrence or public protection.
- Because he forfeited the question by not objecting below, appellate review was for plain error: the appellant had to show a clear or obvious error that affected substantial rights and, if so, that correction was necessary to preserve the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings.
- The district court had remarked at sentencing that multiple prior deportations had not deterred Figueroa-Dominguez and noted concern for public protection; the Fifth Circuit found these remarks and the record as a whole sufficient and held Figueroa-Dominguez failed to show plain error or prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing supervised release on a deportable alien required an explicit or implicit factual finding that it would provide added deterrence/protection | District court failed to make the necessary explicit or implicit finding under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 and commentary | Sentencing remarks and the record as a whole show the court considered deterrence and protection; any error not clear, and no substantial-rights prejudice shown | No plain error; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2012) (supervised release should not be imposed on deportable aliens absent a determination that it provides added deterrence and protection)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (standards for plain-error review)
- United States v. Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2013) (burden on appellant to show reasonable probability that, but for error, a lesser sentence would have been imposed)
- United States v. Becerril-Pena, 714 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2013) (a district court’s particularized explanation referencing § 3553(a) factors can suffice to support imposition of supervised release)