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

No. 19

- 40598

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Moses Soto,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:18

- CR

- 1335

Before **Stewart, Costa,** and **Willett,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

After pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, Moses Soto was sentenced to 188 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release. He appeals the special condition of supervised release requiring him to participate in a mental health treatment

program. Because he did not challenge the condition in the district court, our

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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

### FILED August 3, 2021
Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 19-40598 Document: 00515964053 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2021No. 19

- 40598

2 review is for plain error. United States v. Bree , 927 F.3d 856, 859 (5th Cir. 2019). To succeed on plain

- error review, Soto must show (1) that the dis trict court made an error, (2) that is clear and obvious, and (3) that affected his substantial rights. United States v. Avalos

- Sanchez , 975 F.3d 436, 439 (5th Cir. 2020). Even if he meets all three requirements, we have “ discretion to
correct the error an d will do so only if ‘ the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. ’ ” Id. at 439

– 40 (quoting United States v. Marek , 238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 2001)).

District courts have “broad discretion to impose special conditions of supervised release .” United States v. Alvarez , 880 F.3d 236, 239 (5th Cir. 2018). The conditions must be “reasonably related” to at least one of the following statutory sentencing factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553: (1) the nature and characteristics of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant ; (2) the deterrence of criminal conduct ; (3) the protection of the public from further crimes of the defendant ; and (4) the provision of needed
edu cational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
treatment to the defendant. Id. ; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1). Further, the
conditions must involve “no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to further the last three of those factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)( 2)

. Finally, the conditions must be “c onsistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission .” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(3).

T he district court must state its reasons for imposing a particular

sent ence, including any special conditions of supervised release. United
States v. Gordon , 838 F.3d 597, 604 (5th Cir. 2016). However, where, as here, the district court failed to do so, we can affirm as long as we can infer the reasoning from the record. Id.
Whether a special condition has been properly imposed is a fact

specific inquiry. See United States v. Caravayo , 809 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. Case: 19-40598 Document: 00515964053 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2021No. 19

- 40598

3 2015) (“[S] pecial conditions must be tailored to the individual defendant .”). In reviewing mental health treatment conditions, w e look for “ record evidence indicating that [the defendant] has a questionable mental health history or a particular diagnosis requiring mental health treatment. ” Gordon , 838 F.3d at 604. By itself, a defendant’s childhood trauma does not justify a
mental health treatment condition

. Alvarez , 880 F.3d at 241

. Nor d o remote

or isolated mental health incidents. See Bree , 927 F.3d at 861 (suicide attempt from 40 years before does not justify a mental health treatment condition);
United States v. Garrido , 751 App’x 479, 482 (5th Cir. 2018) (self

- reported mild depression and behavioral issues as a child do not justify a mental health treatment condition).

But h ere , the record indicates that Soto suffered from childhood

trauma and that he experienced a mental health episode as an adult. The presentence investigation repor t (“PSR”) explains that Soto was subjected to severe physical and sexual abuse as a child. It also details Soto’s running away from home at 11, living on the streets and in a shelter, his mother’s not wanting him when authorities tried to return him, and h is father then abusing him, which continued another cycle of running away and living on the streets. The PSR also explains that Soto suffered from suicidal thoughts as a 33

- year

old. Standing alone, neither Soto’s childhood nor his one

- time suicidal
ideati on would support the mental health treatment condition. W e need not
decide , however, whether they support the condition when taken together

. E ven if the district court erred in imposing the condition, the error was not clear or obvious given the combinatio n of extensive childhood abuse and fairly recent suicidal thoughts and the lack of caselaw addressing a like
situation . Soto has thus failed to show plain error.

**AFFIRMED.** Case: 19-40598 Document: 00515964053 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/03/2021