United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-20548

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Juan Nasario Mezomo, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:23-CR-178-2 

______________________________

Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Juan Nasario Mezomo pled guilty to possessing with the intent to 

distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) 

and (b)(1)(B). He was sentenced above the applicable guidelines range to 

96 months of imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of supervised 

release. As part of his plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal or 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 16, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-20548 Document: 84-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2024
No. 23-20548

2

collaterally challenge his conviction or sentence except to assert claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel.

Mezomo argues that the district court’s above-guidelines sentence 

was unreasonable. The Government counters that Mezomo knowingly and 

voluntarily waived his right to appeal, that the appeal waiver is valid and 

enforceable, and that the claim should be dismissed. 

“This court reviews de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an 

appeal.” United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). 

A defendant may waive his statutory right to appeal if the waiver (1) is 

knowingly and voluntarily entered and (2) applies to the circumstances at 

hand, based on the plain language of the plea agreement. United States 

v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2014).

The record demonstrates that Mezomo’s waiver of his appellate 

rights was knowing and voluntary, and therefore, the appeal waiver is valid 

and enforceable. See id. at 736-37; see also United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 

744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). Further, the record indicates that the appeal waiver 

“applies to the circumstances at hand, based on the plain language of the 

[plea] agreement.” Higgins, 739 F.3d at 736. Though Mezomo reserved the 

right to raise a claim of ineffective assistance, he is raising a sentencing issue 

that does not fall within the exception to the appeal waiver. Consequently, 

his sentencing challenge is barred.

Next, Mezomo argues, for the first time on appeal, that the district 

court erred in imposing a mandatory condition of supervised release 

requiring him to register as a sex offender, urging that he has no obligation to 

register as a sex offender under state or federal law. The Government does 

not seek enforcement of the appellate waiver as to this issue, concedes the 

error, and requests that the case be remanded for the limited purpose of 

excising the sex-offender registration requirement from the judgment.

Case: 23-20548 Document: 84-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2024
No. 23-20548

3

As Mezomo acknowledges, because he did not object to the 

challenged supervised release condition, which was listed in the Appendix to 

the Presentence Report and adopted at sentencing, his appellate challenge is 

subject to plain error review. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559–

60 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). To establish plain error, he must show an error 

that was clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett 

v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, we 

have the discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affect[s] the 

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Because Mezomo had no legal obligation to register as a sex offender 

based on his 1998 juvenile conviction for indecency with a child, sexual 

contact, at the time he was sentenced in the instant case in 2023, the 

mandatory supervised release condition requiring him to register as a sex 

offender amounts to clear or obvious error that affects his substantial rights. 

See Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 

62.051; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.001(5)(A); Tex. Code Crim. 

Proc. art. 62.101(c)(1); 34 U.S.C. §§ 20911, 20915(a)(1); see also United 

States v. Alvarez, 880 F.3d 236, 241 (5th Cir. 2018). Additionally, because 

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

proceedings, we will exercise our discretion to correct it. See Alvarez, 880 

F.3d at 242. The mandatory condition of supervised release requiring 

Mezomo to register as a sex offender should be excised from the judgment. 

Mezomo’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence is 

DISMISSED as barred by his appeal waiver. As to the contested 

supervised release condition, his sentence is VACATED in part and 

REMANDED for the limited purpose of amending the written judgment in 

accordance with this opinion. 

Case: 23-20548 Document: 84-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2024