United States Court of Appeals

for 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 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

August 3, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-40598 Document: 00515964053 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2021
No. 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 district 

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 and 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 

educational 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 “consistent with any pertinent policy 

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(3).

The district court must state its reasons for imposing a particular 

sentence, 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 factspecific inquiry. See United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. 

Case: 19-40598 Document: 00515964053 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2021
No. 19-40598

3

2015) (“[S]pecial conditions must be tailored to the individual defendant.”).

In reviewing mental health treatment conditions, we 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 do 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 here, the record indicates that Soto suffered from childhood 

trauma and that he experienced a mental health episode as an adult. The 

presentence investigation report (“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 his 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-yearold. Standing alone, neither Soto’s childhood nor his one-time suicidal 

ideation would support the mental health treatment condition. We need not 

decide, however, whether they support the condition when taken together.

Even if the district court erred in imposing the condition, the error was not 

clear or obvious given the combination 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