20-1528-cr United States v. Nava UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 29th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. Present: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. JOHN L. SINATRA, JR., District Judge. * _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. No. 20-1528-cr ALFREDO CARBALLO NAVA, AKA ALFREDO CARBALLO, AKA ALFREDO NAVA, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________ For Defendant-Appellant: Melissa A. Tuohey, Assistant Federal Public Defender, for Lisa A. Peebles, Federal Public Defender, Syracuse, NY. For Appellee: Rajit S. Dosanjh, Assistant United States Attorney, for Antoinette T. Bacon, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY. * Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court entered on April 29, 2020, is AFFIRMED. Defendant-Appellant Alfredo Carballo Nava appeals from a criminal judgment entered on April 29, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Nava—a Mexican citizen who was unlawfully present in the United States—was convicted after a jury trial of knowingly using and possessing counterfeit immigration documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). On April 28, 2020, the district court sentenced Nava to time served (approximately nine months) and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Nava argues that it was procedurally unreasonable to impose a three-year period of supervised release because the Sentencing Guidelines recommend that a court should not ordinarily impose a period of supervised release on a deportable alien whose deportation is likely. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). Nava also contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because his criminal history and background did not warrant the period of supervised release. We assume the reader’s familiarity with the record. Nava did not object to his term of supervised release at sentencing, and so we review the district court’s imposition of that term for plain error. See United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204, 207–08 (2d Cir. 2007). We discern no error, plain or otherwise, in the sentence imposed by …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals