US v. Aplicano-Oyuela: Appellant Aplicano-Oyuela pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry via plea letter he submitted to the court, rather than plea agreement. The PSR included a calculated guidelines range of 10 to 16 months, with the possibility of a supervised release term of up to three years. Aplicano requested that the court impose a sentence of 8 months, but he did not address the suggested supervised release term in the PSR. At sentencing, the district court repeatedly expressed its perceived belief of the likelihood of Aplicano’s recidivism, as well as his likely return to the US after deportation, and it imposed a 13-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release, so that he could be punished for a long time should he choose to come back to the US and/or commit any further crimes.
On appeal, Aplicano challenged his 3-year term of supervised release, arguing that it is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable, and that his guilty plea was “fatally flawed.” Since Aplicano did not object to his supervised release term until his appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed his issues for plain error only. The Fourth Circuit began its analysis with a review of the supervised release system, pertinently how the Guidelines were amended in 2011, so that when an alien is facing post-incarceration removal and supervised release is not required by statute, courts should ordinarily not impose a term of supervised release. While imposing a term of supervised release on removable aliens is not forbidden, the public is “ordinarily” and “adequately” served by a new prosecution alone.
The Fourth Circuit, in non-precedential unpublished decisions, has generally affirmed the imposition of supervised release on aliens likely to be removed post-incarceration. The Fourth Circuit found the imposition of a term of supervised release procedurally reasonable, as the district court believed that it would deter Aplicano from committed future crimes, curb his desire to return to the US again, to protect US citizens, and that Aplicano’s need to be deterred was a great concern than punishing him. Next, the Fourth Circuit held the imposition of supervised release was substantively reasonable because of the district court’s intention to provide deterrence and protection for the community. Finally, with regard to Aplicano’s guilty plea, the Fourth Circuit decided that even if the district court had erred in advising Aplicano of the nature of supervised release, Aplicano did not show that such error affected his substantial rights, nor that but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.