# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 20498 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**John Albert Garcia,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CR

- 536

- 1

Before **Davis, Smith,**  and **Dennis,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
John Albert Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of four counts of possession of stolen mail. Conceding that he did not object in the district court, G arcia a rgues that the district court reversibly erred in imposing two special conditions of supervised release

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the co urt has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 14, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-20498 Document: 00516394557 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2022No. 21

- 20498

2 relat ed to substance abuse treatment and testing

. He maintains that this error affected his substantial rights. The Government agrees.
Our review is for plain error. See United States v. Alvarez , 880 F.3d 236, 239 (5t h Cir. 2018). To obtain relief, Garcia must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See id. If he makes such a showing, we have “ the discretion to remedy the error[ .] ” Id. (internal quotation marks and c itation omitted). Yet, we will only do so “if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. ” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted).
District courts “possess broad discret ion to impose special conditions of supervised release,” subject to the limitations set forth at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(d). United States v. Bree , 927 F.3d 856, 859 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. The conditions must
also be consistent with any relevant policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission, which, as relevant here, recommends imposing a supervised release condition requiring substance abuse treatment and testing
if the court “has rea son to believe that the defendant is an abuser of narcotics,
other controlled substance s o r alcohol.” U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(4); see § 3583(d)(3)

. The district court must provide factual findings to justify the imposition of special conditions of supervised release. United States v.
Salazar , 743 F.3d 445, 451 (5th Cir. 2014). In the absence of such a justification by the district court, we will independently review the record for sufficient evidence to support the special condition. Bree , 927 F.3d at 860.
The district court clearly or obviously errs when it imposes a special

co ndition without explanati on

— whether it be oral explanation at sentencing or explanation found through our review of the record

— and the condition is not reasonably related to the sta tutory factors

. See United States v. Prieto , 801 F.3d 547, 552

- 53 (5th Cir. 2015). Case: 21-20498 Document: 00516394557 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2022No. 21

- 20498

3 At Garcia’s sentencing hearing, the district court did not provide factual findings to justify the imposition of the substance abuse conditions

. Our review of the record uncovers that , while being investigated for the instant offenses, Garcia possess ed suspected marijuana on one occasion, and
he possess ed a black tar

- like substance on another occasion

. In addition,

a lthough he declined to discuss any history of sub stance abuse during his presentence interview, Garcia did report his weekly “cannabinoids” use at the time of his arrest

. However, t here is no evidence of substance abuse treatment in Garcia’s past, a nd he does not have a history of drug related

arrests. C f. United States v. Cothran , 302 F.3d 279, 290 (5th Cir. 2002)

. Further, his in stant conviction is not a drug related offense , c f. United States v. Hinojosa , 956 F.3d 331, 334

- 35 (5th Cir. 2020) , and there is no evidence
that Garcia’s offense of convict ion was driven by the use of addictive
substances , see Salazar , 743 F.3d at 452

. In light of the foregoing, the record
does not make the district court’s reasoning surrounding the imposition of the substance abuse conditions so obvious that further explanation was unwarranted.
Accordingly , we **REMAND** as to the special conditions of supervised
release relat ing to substance abuse treatment and testing s o that the district
court may p rovide further explanation for imposing those or, if warranted, conduct further factfinding . We leave the determination of whether to vacate or modify the special conditions to the district court on remand. Case: 21-20498 Document: 00516394557 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2022