United States Court of Appeals

for 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, Garcia argues that the district court 

reversibly erred in imposing two special conditions of supervised release 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 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: 07/14/2022
No. 21-20498

2

related 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 (5th 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 citation 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 discretion 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 reason to believe that the defendant is an abuser of narcotics, 

other controlled substances or 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

condition without explanation—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 statutory factors. See United States v. Prieto, 801 

F.3d 547, 552-53 (5th Cir. 2015). 

Case: 21-20498 Document: 00516394557 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2022
No. 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 possessed suspected marijuana on one occasion, and 

he possessed a black tar-like substance on another occasion. In addition, 

although he declined to discuss any history of substance abuse during his 

presentence interview, Garcia did report his weekly “cannabinoids” use at 

the time of his arrest. However, there is no evidence of substance abuse 

treatment in Garcia’s past, and he does not have a history of drug related 

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

Further, his instant conviction is not a drug related offense, cf. United States 

v. Hinojosa, 956 F.3d 331, 334-35 (5th Cir. 2020), and there is no evidence 

that Garcia’s offense of conviction 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 relating to substance abuse treatment and testing so that the district 

court may provide 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