United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40621

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Brenda Alicia Fuentes, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-2341-1

Before Higginbotham, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Brenda Alicia Fuentes appeals the sentence imposed following her 

guilty plea conviction for sexual abuse of a ward in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2243(b). She argues that the district court plainly erred in requiring her to 

register as a sex offender as a special condition of her 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

August 18, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40621 Document: 00515984410 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2021
No. 20-40621

2

because the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) 

provides an exception for individuals who committed sex offenses involving 

consensual sexual contact. She also argues that the district court failed to 

make any factual findings to substantiate the imposition of the special 

condition of supervised release.

When a defendant challenges a supervised release condition for the 

first time on appeal, plain error review applies if, as here, the defense had 

notice of the condition and an opportunity to object in the district court. 

United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 

825 (2020). To establish reversible plain error, Fuentes must show a 

forfeited error that is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable 

dispute, and that the clear or obvious error affects her substantial rights. 

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If she makes such a 

showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. 

Fuentes bears the burden of proving each of these elements. United States v. 

Huor, 852 F.3d 392, 398 (5th Cir. 2017).

First, although the district court imposed the SORNA sex offender 

registration requirement as a special condition of supervised release, the 

condition was mandatory pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) because an offense 

under § 2243(b) is a “sex offense” under SORNA. See 34 U.S.C. 

§§ 20911(1) and (5)(A)(iii), 20913(a). Thus, the district court was not 

required to make findings under § 3583(d) supporting the condition before it 

was imposed. See § 3583(d); Diggles, 957 F.3d at 558-59, 562-63.

An exception to the SORNA registration requirement is provided for 

by § 20911(5)(C), which provides that “[a]n offense involving consensual 

sexual conduct is not a sex offense . . . if the victim was an adult, unless the 

adult was under the custodial authority of the offender at the time of the 

Case: 20-40621 Document: 00515984410 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2021
No. 20-40621

3

offense.” Fuentes pleaded guilty to performing oral sex on a federal inmate 

while she was employed as a supervisory cook in the prison where the inmate 

was detained. Any error in failing to apply the SORNA exception was not 

clear or obvious, but rather subject to reasonable dispute, given the lack of 

any binding jurisprudence and Fuentes’s solemn declarations in court that 

she was in custodial authority of the prisoner, and that she did not dispute 

that she was a prison cook supervisor while the prisoner worked in the 

kitchen. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73–74 

(1977). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-40621 Document: 00515984410 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/18/2021