NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 20 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    18-50038

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:17-cr-00523-BEN

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ARREZ MELITON-SALTO,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                   Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2018**

Before:      LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Arrez Meliton-Salto appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the sentence imposed following his bench-trial conviction for being a

removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.



      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Meliton-Salto challenges the three-year term of supervised release imposed

by the district court. He contends that the court procedurally erred by failing to

consider U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), calculate the Guidelines range for supervised

release, and adequately explain the sentence. Because Meliton-Salto did not raise

these objections in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States

v. Dallman, 

, 761 (9th Cir. 2008).

      There was no plain error. The district court explained that it believed that a

term of supervised release was necessary in light of its concerns about deterrence

and protection of the public. The court followed the applicable Guideline, see

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5, and adequately explained the sentence. See United

States v. Carty, 

, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, Meliton-

Salto has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a

different sentence had the court explicitly calculated the Guidelines range for

supervised release. See 

.

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2                                    18-50038