NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50360 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cr-03172-AJB-1 v. ALVARO ANTONIO DOMINGUEZ, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 7, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: MURGUIA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN,*** District Judge. Alvaro Dominguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his sentence for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The district court sentenced Dominguez to a forty- six-month term of incarceration, to be followed by a three-year period of supervised release that is subject to various conditions—including a special condition which forbids him from entering or residing in Mexico without permission of the district court or his probation officer. Dominguez challenges his custodial sentence as substantively unreasonable; the above-mentioned special condition as procedurally and substantively unreasonable; and several of the standard conditions of supervision as either unconstitutionally vague or wrongfully imposed without notice based on amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines and this circuit’s case law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2009). De novo review applies to claims that conditions of supervised release violate the Constitution, United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2018), and when a defendant is denied notice of the imposition of a non-standard condition of supervised release, United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2006). Finally, we review conditions of supervised release for plain error if, as was the case here with respect to the special condition challenged on appeal, the defendant fails to object at the time they are imposed. United States v. Jeremiah, 493 F.3d 2 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2007). 1. The custodial sentence imposed by the district court is substantively reasonable. It is evident from the record that the district court carefully considered the totality of the circumstances in determining the forty-six-month below- Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991, 992–93 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (affirming below-Guidelines sentence based on district court’s reasoning). In doing so, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, in addition to the Sentencing Guidelines, and explained its deviation from the Guidelines ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals