USA v. Maynor Orellana

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-20577 Affirmed ] Judge: PEH , Judge: JLD , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 07/07/2014 for Appellant Maynor Miguel Oro Orellana [13-20577]

Case: 13-20577

Document: 00512663100

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/13/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-20577
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
June 13, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

MAYNOR MIGUEL ORO ORELLANA, also known as Byron Ramos, also
known as Maynor Orellana Oro, also known as Maynor M. Oro, Maynor M.
Orellano,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-289-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Maynor Miguel Oro Orellana pleaded guilty without benefit of a written
plea agreement of illegal reentry following deportation, and he was sentenced
within the guidelines range to a 50-month term of imprisonment and to
a three-year period of supervised release. Citing U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), Orellana
contends that the district court erred in failing to explain adequately its
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 13-20577

Document: 00512663100

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/13/2014

No. 13-20577
reasons for imposing a period of supervised release. As Orellana properly
concedes, our review of this issue is for plain error. See United States v.
Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 327-28 (5th Cir. 2012).
The district court should explain the sentence imposed “to allow for
meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). Little explanation is required
where, as here, the sentence imposed is within the guidelines range. See
United States v. Cancino-Trinidad, 710 F.3d 601, 606 (5th Cir. 2013).
In this case, the district court stated that it had imposed a three-year
period of supervision “to deter the defendant from reentering the United States
illegally as a measure of additional deterrence and protection.” The district
court’s explanation for imposing a period of supervised release was adequate
under this court’s decision in Dominguez-Alvarado. See 695 F.3d at 330. There
was no error, plain or otherwise. See id. The judgment is
AFFIRMED.

2