Criminal – Sentence wasn’t unreasonable despite deportation consequences

Although a district court should ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release in a case in which it is not required by statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment, because the court here was aware of this provision but determined that additional deterrence was needed in this case, its sentence was not unreasonable.

Background

Heliberto Figueroa Gomez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He was sentenced to time served and one year of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the imposition of a term of supervised release without adequate explanation rendered his sentence procedurally unreasonable. The government contends that any shortcoming in the district court’s explanation was harmless.

Analysis

A district court “ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release in a case in which supervised release is not required by statute and the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment.” However, the district court should “consider 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.”

This court’s review for procedural reasonableness of the imposition of supervised release in an reentry case includes 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 is needed.” Here, the record shows that the district court was aware of USSG § 5D1.1(c), as the provision was referenced in the presentence report—which the court adopted—and because the court engaged in a discussion about the provision at Gomez’s sentencing hearing when Gomez objected to the imposition of a term of supervised release.

The district court recognized USSG § 5D1.1(c) provides that supervised release ordinarily should not be imposed on a removable alien but noted that Gomez had entered the country illegally more than once and was a recidivist returnee. This court has reviewed the court’s exchange with counsel concerning the imposition of a term of supervised release and its statements in imposing Gomez’s sentence. It concludes that the court sufficiently stated that it was imposing a term of supervised release as a deterrent.

Affirmed.

United States v. Gomez, Case No. 25-4329, April 24, 2026. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from EDVA at Richmond (Young). Geremy C. Kamens, Patrick L. Bryant and Joseph S. Camden for Appellant. Lindsey Halligan, Todd W. Blanche, Robert K. McBride, James Reed Sawyers and Carla Jordan-Detamore for Appellee. VLW 026-2-158. 5 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-2-158