United States v. Sigala-Salazar

• Decision Date: 02 December 2022
• Docket Number: 21-10342
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTURO SIGALA-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ARTURO SIGALA-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-10342

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

December 2, 2022

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted November 18, 2022 San Francisco, California

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00296-JAD-EJY-1

Before: LINN, ^[**] RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^[*]

1

Arturo Sigala-Salazar pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to a prison term to be followed by seven years of supervised release. On appeal, he challenges several conditions of supervised release. Because trial counsel failed to object to those conditions, we review for plain error. See United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

1. Sigala's plea agreement waived his right to appeal anything but an above Guidelines sentence, which he did not receive. But, "[w]hen a defendant with an otherwise valid appeal waiver challenges the legality of her sentence, the claim as to waiver rises and falls with the claim on the merits." United States v. Nishida, No. 21-10070, 2022 WL 16986253, at *4 (9th Cir. Nov. 17, 2022) (cleaned up). We therefore turn to Sigala's various claims that the terms of supervised release were illegal.

2. It was not plain error for the district court to impose a term of supervised release that would continue after Sigala is removed upon completion of his custodial sentence. The court provided "a specific and particularized explanation that supervised release would provide an added measure of deterrence." United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012); see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. 5. Moreover, the government conceded at argument that the conditions of

2

supervised release will not be enforced against Sigala unless he returns to the United States after removal.

3. We vacate Special Condition 4 and remand for the district court to reconsider its language in light of Nishida, 2022 WL 16986253, which dealt with a similar supervised release condition.

4. We also vacate Special Condition 8, which prohibits Sigala from viewing or possessing pornographic materials that could "compromise [his] sex offense specific treatment," as unconstitutionally vague because people "of common intelligence must necessarily...