Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50334/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50334-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alejandro Figueroa-Munoz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50334

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEJANDRO FIGUEROA-MUNOZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-2365

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alejandro Figueroa-Munoz (Figueroa) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry to 

the United States subsequent to deportation and to misuse of a passport. For 

the first time on appeal, he argues that the district court plainly erred by 

imposing a term of intermittent confinement as a condition of his non-reporting 

supervised release. The Government moves for summary affirmance, or, 

alternatively, for an extension of time within which to file a brief, contending 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50334 Document: 00512938963 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2015
No. 14-50334

that Figueroa’s argument is foreclosed by this court’s recent unpublished

decision in United States v. Arciniega-Rodriguez, 581 F. App’x 419 (5th Cir. 

2014).

Because the district court announced the challenged condition at 

sentencing and Figueroa did not object, our review is for plain error only. See

United States v. Bishop, 603 F.3d 279, 280 (5th Cir. 2010). Under plain error 

review, relief is not warranted unless there has been error, the error is clear or 

obvious, and the error affected substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 

556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Further, we should exercise our discretion to correct 

plain error only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), a district court may order, as a condition 

of supervised release, any condition set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b). Section 

3563(b) includes that the defendant “remain in the custody of the Bureau of 

Prisons during nights, weekends, or other intervals of time, totaling no more 

than the lesser of one year or the term of imprisonment authorized for the 

offense, during the first year of the term of probation or supervised release[.]” 

§ 3563(b)(10).

“[L]egal error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable 

dispute.” Id. at 135; see also United States v. Hernandez-De Aza, 536 F. App’x

404, 408 (5th Cir. 2013). Figueroa has not shown that the district court’s 

written judgment contained a clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 

135. Figueroa also has not shown that any error affected his substantial rights, 

or seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings. Id. “The possibility that the Bureau of Prisons will misinterpret 

the district court’s written judgment as requiring [a defendant] to serve a term 

of intermittent confinement immediately upon beginning his term of 

2

Case: 14-50334 Document: 00512938963 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2015
No. 14-50334

supervised release is entirely speculative and remote.” Arciniega-Rodriguez, 

581 F. App’x at 420-21. In addition, Figueroa is subject to an immigration 

detainer and will be placed in removal proceedings upon final disposition of the 

instant sentence. He therefore faces no negative consequences from the 

imposition of intermittent confinement as a condition of his non-reporting

supervised release unless he illegally returns to the United States. Id.; see also

United States v. Chavez-Trejo, 533 F. App’x 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2013).

Despite this court’s recent decision in Arciniega-Rodriguez, the 

Government has not demonstrated that the issues presented in this appeal are 

appropriate for summary affirmance. See United States v. Holy Land Found. 

For Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006); 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s 

motion for summary affirmance is DENIED; its alternative motion for an 

extension of time to file a brief is also DENIED.

3

Case: 14-50334 Document: 00512938963 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/18/2015