US v. Jose Benitez Alvarado

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00696-JFM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999648537].. [14-4784]

Appeal: 14-4784

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 8

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE ADOLFO BENITEZ ALVARADO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cr-00696-JFM-1)

Submitted:

July 23, 2015

Decided:

August 27, 2015

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Vacated in part and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Zachary A. Myers, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4784

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 8

PER CURIAM:
Jose

Adolfo

Benitez

Alvarado

pleaded

guilty

to

illegal

reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),
(b)(2) (2012).

On appeal, Benitez Alvarado contends that the

district court procedurally erred when it sentenced him to a
three-year

term

explanation.

of

supervised

release

without

a

proper

We agree, vacate the term of supervised release,

and remand for further proceedings.
Benitez Alvarado is a native and citizen of El Salvador.
In

2002,

Alvarado

following
was

a

ordered

subsequently deported.
second time, in 2011.

2001

conviction

removed

from

for

the

robbery,

United

Benitez

States

and

He was removed from the United States a
In 2013, Benitez Alvarado was arrested in

Maryland and later convicted of reckless endangerment.

The 2002

order of removal was never rescinded, and Benitez Alvarado was
never given permission to reenter the United States.
Before Benitez Alvarado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry,
he was informed that he could receive a sentence that included a
period of supervised release.

The presentence report (“PSR”)

recommended a Sentencing Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months’
imprisonment.
supervised

The PSR did not make a recommendation regarding

release,

but

it

did

reference

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 5D1.1 (regarding imposition of a term of
supervised release).
2

Appeal: 14-4784

Doc: 27

Under

Filed: 08/27/2015

USSG

§ 5D1.1(c),

Pg: 3 of 8

if

supervised

release

is

not

required by statute and the defendant is an alien facing postincarceration removal, a sentencing court “ordinarily should not
impose

a

term

Guidelines

of

Manual

supervised

release.”

§ 5D1.1(c).

If

the

U.S.

alien

Sentencing

were

to

return

illegally, deterrence and the need to protect the public are
“adequately served by a new prosecution.”
“The

court

should,

however,

consider

§ 5D1.1 cmt. n.5.

imposing

a

term

of

supervised release on such a defendant if the court determines
it would provide an added measure of deterrence and protection
based on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.”
At

sentencing,
52

the

months’

Government
imprisonment

requested
and

3

a

years’

Id.

Guidelines

sentence

of

supervised

release.

As the Government began to acknowledge that supervised

release under this circumstance was not generally advised, the
district court interjected: “I do that anyway.
it’s

an

additional

incentive

not

to

come

It seems to me

back.”

J.A.

44.1

Benitez Alvarado claimed his criminal history was overstated and
requested a departure from his Criminal History Category, and a
Guidelines range of 27 to 33 months.

He did not specifically

object to the imposition of supervised release.

1

Nevertheless,

Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed
by the parties in this appeal.

3

Appeal: 14-4784

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/27/2015

Pg: 4 of 8

he claimed that he had only returned to the United States in the
past to be with his family, and that because his family has
decided to move to El Salvador he would not be returning to the
United States.
The

district

court

partially

credited

Benitez

Alvarado’s

argument for a lower sentence and reduced his Guidelines range
to 41 to 51 months’ imprisonment.
Benitez

Alvarado

supervised

to

41

release.

months’

Benitez

The court then sentenced
imprisonment

Alvarado

did

not

and

3

object

years’
to

the

imposition of supervised release.
The parties do not agree on the appropriate standard of
review, Benitez

Alvarado

asserting

that

reasonableness

review

applies and the Government arguing for plain error review.

In

United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 4081258
(4th Cir. July 7, 2015), the Defendant was convicted of illegal
reentry

and

sentence.

faced
At

deportation

sentencing,

he

upon
knew

the
that

completion
the

PSR

of

his

included

a

recommendation that he serve a period of supervised release, and
yet,

while

Defendant
release.

he
did

argued
not

for

object

a

below-Guidelines

to

the

imposition

sentence,
of

the

supervised

The district court sentenced the Defendant to a term

of imprisonment and a period of supervised release.

On appeal,

the Defendant claimed that the imposition of supervised release
was

both

procedurally

and

substantively
4

unreasonable.

We

Appeal: 14-4784

Doc: 27

concluded

Filed: 08/27/2015

that

the

Pg: 5 of 8

Defendant

did

not

properly

preserve

this

particular sentencing issue and reviewed the issue for plain
error.

2015 WL 4081258, at *4.

In view of the similarity of

these facts to the circumstances presented here, we will review
Benitez Alvarado’s claim for plain error.
To

satisfy

plain

error

review,

Benitez

Alvarado

must

establish that: (1) there is a sentencing error; (2) the error
is plain; and (3) the error affects his substantial rights.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731–32 (1993).

See

If this

test is satisfied, we must decide whether to cure the error “and
should

not

fairness,

do

so

unless

integrity

proceedings.’”

or

the

error

public

‘seriously

reputation

if

it

of

the

judicial

United States v. Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170, 184

(4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 736).
plain

affects

is

consideration.”

“clear
United

or

obvious

States

v.

at

the

time

An error is
of

Ramirez-Castillo,

appellate
748

F.3d

205, 215 (4th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
In Aplicano-Oyuela, we held that our review for procedural
reasonableness of the imposition of supervised release in an
illegal reentry case should include consideration of whether the
sentencing court “(1) is aware of Guidelines section 5D1.1(c);
(2)

considers

a

defendant’s

specific

circumstances

and

the

§ 3553(a) factors; and (3) determines that additional deterrence
5

Appeal: 14-4784

Doc: 27

is needed.”

Filed: 08/27/2015

Pg: 6 of 8

2015 WL 4081258, at *6 (citing United States v.

Alvarado, 720 F.3d 153, 159 (2d Cir. 2013)).

The record shows

that here the court was aware of USSG § 5D1.1(c).

But, when the

Government

the

first

mentioned

supervised

court stated, “I do that anyway.”

release,

J.A. 44.

district

The court did not

explain why the facts and circumstances of Benitez Alvarado’s
case warranted the “added measure of deterrence and protection”
that

a

term

Sentencing

of

supervised

Guidelines

Manual

release
§ 5D1.1

would
cmt.

provide.
n.5.

U.S.

Rather,

in

reference to Benitez Alvarado’s claim that he would not return
to the United States, the court stated, “I do understand that
you and your family are trying to make arrangements for them to
go to your home country rather than have you come here, and, in
terms of that, I think there is a realistic chance that’s what
will happen.”

J.A. 54.

Because the district court implied that it always ordered
supervised release on deportable aliens, while at the same time
perceiving a realistic chance that Benitez Alvarado would not
return to the United States, we conclude that the court failed
to consider Benitez Alvarado’s specific circumstances before it
decided to impose supervised release.

We also conclude that the

court did not decide whether additional deterrence was needed
“based on the facts and circumstances of [the] particular case.”

6

Appeal: 14-4784

U.S.

Doc: 27

Sentencing

Filed: 08/27/2015

Pg: 7 of 8

Guidelines

Manual

§ 5D1.1

cmt.

n.5.

Accordingly, we conclude there was error and it was plain. 2
Furthermore, we conclude that this error affected Benitez
Alvarado’s substantial rights.

See United States v. Price, 777

F.3d 700, 712 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding Guidelines error affected
defendant’s

substantial

rights

because

longer term of supervised release).

he

was

sentenced

to

Finally, given the court’s

finding of a realistic chance Benitez Alvarado would not return
and that his criminal history was overstated, the record does
not

overwhelmingly

support

the

finding

that,

had

the

court

considered Benitez Alvarado’s individual circumstances, it would
have ordered supervised release.

Cf. United States v. Promise,

255 F.3d 150, 161-64 (4th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (declining to
notice plain error at sentencing because evidence overwhelmingly
supported drug quantity).

Therefore, we conclude that the error

seriously affects the fairness, integrity, and public reputation
of the judicial proceedings and should be corrected.

See Price,

777 F.3d at 712.
2

The district court, of course, did not have the benefit of
our decision in Aplicano-Oyuela at the time of sentencing.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has explained that an error may
be plain even if the legal question was unsettled at the time of
the district court’s decision: “It is enough that an error be
‘plain’ at the time of appellate consideration for the second
part of the four-part Olano test to be satisfied.” Henderson v.
United States, 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1130-31 (2013) (alterations
omitted).

7

Appeal: 14-4784

Doc: 27

Filed: 08/27/2015

Pg: 8 of 8

Accordingly, we vacate the term of supervised release and
remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. 3
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED

3

We express no opinion as to the propriety of supervised
release in this case.

8