# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 19

- 40381 Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus
Jesus Ramirez, Jr., also known as Justin Ramos,

Defendant

— Appellant

.

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

- CR

- 923

- 1

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Jesus Ramirez , Jr. , pleaded guilty of sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) , and was sentenced to 280 months of imprisonment and a lifetime term of supervised release. The district court imposed a special condition of supervised release that “[t]he defen dant shall

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin

ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum stances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 8, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40381 Document: 00515700635 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2021No. 19

- 40381

2 not subscribe to any computer online service, nor shall the defendant access any Internet service, including access via a cellular device, during the length of his/her supervision, unless approved in advance in writing by the United
States Proba tion Officer.” For the first time on appeal, Ramirez challenges the special condition as unreasonably restrictive inasmuch as it requires him to obtain permission before each attempt to use the Internet for routine tasks , urging that such

con dition is a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary to protect the pub

lic or deter him from future crimes . The g overnment concedes the error. Ramirez’s newly raised challenge is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 563 (5th Ci r. 2020) (en banc) , cert. denied , 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5452 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2020) . To demonstrate plain

error, Ramirez must show (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear and obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the dis

cretion to correct the error “ only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id . (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). Because the special condition banning Internet access constitutes

a lifetime ban and because it is not clear whether the condition as written would require separat e, pre

- use approval by Ramirez’s probation officer each
time Ramirez sought to access the Internet rather than for categories of use , the condition as written, under its most austere interpretation, amounts to clear or obvious error affecting Ramirez’s sub stantial rights

. See United
States v. Sealed Juvenile , 7 81 F.3d 747, 756−5 7 (5th Cir. 20 15 ) . Conse quently, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. See id. We therefore
AFFIRM the special condition subject to the interpretation that approval i s not required for each instance of computer usage and Internet access. See id. Case: 19-40381 Document: 00515700635 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2021No. 19

- 40381

3 Ramirez contends that the judgment contains a clerical error requiring remand for correction p er Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 . We agree.
A lthough the written judgment cites the correct statute of conviction, it incorrectly describes the “Nature of Offense” as “ Solicitation of a Minor” instead of “Sexual Exploitation of a Child. ” The case is therefore
REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. See United States v. Sapp , 439 F.2d 817, 821 (5th Cir. 1971)

. Case: 19-40381 Document: 00515700635 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2021