NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________ No. 17-3635 _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SULPICIO BELLO-GUERRERO, Appellant _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1-17-cr-00305-001) District Judge: Hon. Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 12, 2018 Before: CHAGARES, GREENBERG, FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: July 27, 2018) _______________ OPINION* _______________ *This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. FUENTES, Circuit Judge. Petitioner is Sulpicio Bello-Guerrero. Bello-Guerrero pled guilty to unlawful re- entry, and the District Court imposed a sentence of time served and a one-year term of supervised release. Bello-Guerrero appeals the sentence of supervised release. For the following reasons, we will affirm. I. Bello-Guerrero, a Mexican citizen, was initially deported from the United States in December 2008. At the time of his removal, he was provided documentation warning him that he could not enter or attempt to enter the United States for a period of ten years. In September 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested Bello- Guerrero in Pennsylvania. In November 2017, Bello-Guerrero pled guilty to one count of unlawful re-entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). At sentencing, the District Court imposed a prison sentence of time served, along with a one-year term of supervised release. In doing so, the District Court stated: “[w]e note that a term of supervision is appropriate in this particular case given the defendant’s prior . . . illegal entry into the United States, the prior notification provided to the defendant, and the need to add to the issue of deterrence with respect to the sentence imposed.” 1 The District Court also questioned the 1 App. 29-30. 2 Government on its interpretation of § 5D1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines, and considered Bello-Guerrero’s employment issues in Mexico. This appeal followed. 2 II. On appeal, Bello-Guerrero argues that the District Court’s sentence was substantively unreasonable. Bello-Guerrero contends the Sentencing Guidelines disfavor a sentence of supervised release when the defendant is a deportable alien, and that the District Court did not provide adequate justification for imposing a term of supervised release. 3 This Court reviews sentences for reasonableness, applying an abuse of discretion standard. 4 The abuse of discretion standard gives district courts “broad latitude in sentencing.” 5 “[I]t is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence.” 6 Furthermore, 2 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 3 Bello-Guerrero also preempts any anticipated argument from the Government that this appeal is moot because he has been deported, even though the Government makes no mootness argument. Nevertheless, because a live case or controversy is necessary, we must satisfy ourselves that this case was not mooted by Bello-Guerrero’s deportation. Even though Bello-Guerrero’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals