UNITED STATES v. HERNANDEZ BARRERAS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-24No. No. 20-10086

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's imposition of supervised release and standard conditions of supervised release.

Francisco Hernandez-Barreras was convicted of illegal reentry and challenged the district court's imposition of supervised release and its standard conditions. Hernandez-Barreras argued that supervised release was inappropriate because he would likely be deported after serving his prison sentence, and that standard conditions would be impossible to comply with for someone outside the country. The appellate court examined whether the district court had properly exercised its discretion in imposing these requirements.

Regarding supervised release, the court found no abuse of discretion. Although sentencing guidelines ordinarily disfavor supervised release when deportation is likely, courts may impose it if they provide a specific explanation of how supervised release would serve as a deterrent or provide protection in that defendant's particular circumstances. The district court here offered such reasoning. As for the standard conditions, Hernandez-Barreras raised this objection for the first time on appeal rather than before the trial court, triggering a more demanding plain-error standard. The court determined that Hernandez-Barreras failed to demonstrate that imposing standard conditions on someone facing deportation was so obviously wrong that a competent judge should have recognized the error without being prompted.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether imposing supervised release is an abuse of discretion when a defendant will likely be deported
Whether standard conditions of supervised release constitute plain error when imposed on a defendant facing deportation
Standard of review for supervised release decisions under the Sentencing Guidelines

Procedural posture

Hernandez-Barreras appealed the district court's sentencing decision imposing supervised release and standard conditions following his conviction for illegal reentry.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM *

Francisco Hernandez-Barreras challenges the district courts imposition of supervised release and standard conditions following his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing supervised release. The district courts application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts of the case is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). A district court “ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release” where the defendant “likely will be deported after imprisonment.” U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). However, a district court may impose supervised release if it gives “a specific and particularized explanation that supervised release would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection based on the facts of [the defendants] case.” United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, the district court considered Hernandez-Barrerass case and explained why a term of supervised release was “warranted under the circumstances.” This was not an abuse of discretion.

2. The district court did not plainly err in imposing standard conditions of supervised release. Hernandez-Barreras argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred by imposing standard conditions “that are unclear, and in some cases impossible to comply with, for a supervisee who has been deported.” Because he failed to raise this issue to the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Tapia, 665 F.3d 1059, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011). To demonstrate plain error, Hernandez-Barreras must show that the error he asserts “is so clear-cut, so obvious, a competent district judge should be able to avoid it without benefit of objection.” Claiborne v. Blauser, 934 F.3d 885, 898 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419, 428 (9th Cir. 2011)). “An error cannot be plain where there is no controlling authority on point and where the most closely analogous precedent leads to conflicting results.” United States v. Wijegoonaratna, 922 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Assuming without deciding that there was error, Hernandez-Barreras has not shown that the error was plain.

AFFIRMED.