United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-40534 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Roel Longoria, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:22-CR-303-2 

______________________________ 

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Roel Longoria appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea 

conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or 

more of a substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. 

He argues that there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of 

sentence and the written judgment such that two special conditions of 

_____________________ 

*

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

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

June 7, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-40534 Document: 47-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024
No. 23-40534 

2 

supervised release requiring his participation in an alcohol abuse treatment 

program and abstention from the use or possession of alcohol must be 

excised. 

The Government argues that Longoria has waived review of this issue 

by intentionally relinquishing his rights. See United States v. Arviso-Mata, 442 

F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006). Longoria arguably waived any challenge to the 

pronouncement of his supervised release conditions by asserting that he was 

familiar with the special conditions being referenced and rejecting the district 

court’s explicit offer to recite the conditions in open court. See United States 

v. Dodson, 288 F.3d 153, 160 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Musquiz, 45 

F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). However, out of an abundance of caution, we 

will address the issue. 

We review a condition of supervision for plain error if the defendant 

could have challenged it in the district court and did not, but apply an abuseof-discretion standard if he had no such opportunity. See United States v. 

Martinez, 987 F.3d 432, 434-35 (5th Cir. 2021). It is unnecessary to 

determine the appropriate standard as Longoria’s argument fails under 

either. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008) 

(concluding that the standard of review need not be resolved because there 

was no error under any standard). 

Defendants “ha[ve] a constitutional right to be present at 

sentencing”; therefore, a district court must pronounce any discretionary 

conditions of supervision when imposing sentence. United States v. Vega, 332 

F.3d 849, 852 (5th Cir. 2003); see United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 557-

58 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). “If the written judgment broadens the 

restrictions or requirements of supervised release from an oral 

pronouncement,” a conflict exists, in which case the judgment should be 

amended to conform to the pronouncement. United States v. Mireles, 471 

Case: 23-40534 Document: 47-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2024
No. 23-40534 

3 

F.3d 551, 557-58 (5th Cir. 2006) (quote at 558). There is no conflict, 

however, if a discrepancy between the judgment and the oral sentence is 

“merely an ambiguity that can be resolved by reviewing the rest of the 

record.” Id. at 558; see also United States v. Tanner, 984 F.3d 454, 456 (5th 

Cir. 2021) (stating that where an ambiguity exists, we look to the district 

court’s intent to determine the sentence). 

According to the record, Longoria had sporadically used marijuana 

since the age of 18 and had abused alcohol since the age of 19, to the point 

that he was ordered to participate in Alcoholics Anonymous as a condition of 

parole in a previous conviction. When imposing the conditions of 

supervision, the district court specifically referenced Longoria’s history of 

alcohol abuse when it ordered that he participate in a substance abuse testing 

and treatment program and abstain from substance abuse. The written 

judgment merely clarified an ambiguity, as the record supports the 

conclusion that the district court intended to include alcohol-related 

restrictions when it orally imposed special conditions requiring the treatment 

for substance abuse. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 557-59; Tanner, 984 F.3d at 457; 

Mireles, 471 F.3d at 558. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-40534 Document: 47-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2024