United States v. Ramiro Diaz Morin, 511 F. App'x 338

Diaz Morin pleaded guilty to illegal reentry of a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and was sentenced to 51 months’ imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release.
The PSR calculated offense level 22 and criminal history category III, yielding a Guidelines range of 51–63 months and supervised release of 1–3 years.
The district court noted multiple prior deportations and a prior drug conviction and declined a downward variance, imposing 51 months and a 3-year supervised release.
Diaz Morin appeals, challenging the supervised release as procedurally and substantively unreasonable for several reasons, including explanation, notice, weight of a factor, and acceptance-of-responsibility adjustments.
The court reviews for plain error since there was no objection below to the supervised release term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court adequately explained supervised release.	Diaz Morin argues the court failed to adequately explain why supervised release was imposed.	Diaz Morin asserts the court did not provide a proper justification.	No plain-error result; explanation was sufficient.
Whether notice and departure analysis was required for the supervised release term.	Diaz Morin contends the court should have given notice and conducted a departure analysis.	Morin concedes the term was within range; no departure analysis required.	Not required; within range, no departure analysis needed.
Whether the court failed to account for the guideline recommending ordinarily not imposing supervised release on deportable aliens.	Morin argues the court should have weighed this Guideline recommendation.	Court considered 3553(a) factors and personal circumstances; no error.	No plain error; court’s rationale analogous to Dominguez-Alvarado.
Whether the acceptance of responsibility adjustment should have been applied despite no government motion.	Morin sought a 1-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b) without government motion.	Government did not move for the reduction; Morin did not prevail.	Not granted; the issue was not preserved for appeal and not reversible error.

United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error framework; no departure analysis required when within-range supervised-release decision)
United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2002) (example of permissible focus on factors other than § 5D1.1(c) in sentencing)
United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (court may infer careful consideration of sentencing factors when within Guidelines range)
United States v. Newson, 515 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2008) (forecloses departure notice where within-range sentence)