IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50666

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

MANUEL CABEZUELA, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-364-1

Before BARKSDALE, OWEN, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel Cabezuela, Jr., challenges two components of the written 

judgment following his two controlled-substances guilty-plea convictions, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846: a $500 fine; and a supervised-release 

condition concerning a halfway house. We lack jurisdiction to consider either 

challenge.

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 29, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50666 Document: 00514489719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2018
No. 17-50666

2

Cabezuela pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to the two offenses. 

The district court imposed concurrent, within-Guidelines sentences of 100 

months’ imprisonment and four years’ supervised release. At sentencing, the 

court’s oral pronouncement of sentence included, inter alia: (1) a $500 fine,

payable through a payment plan; and (2) a supervised-release condition

requiring that, if Cabezuela is released from prison in the El Paso, Texas, area 

and has no other suitable residence, he is to reside in a halfway house and 

comply with the facility’s terms, conditions, and rules. 

Deviating from those statements at sentencing, the written judgment 

required the $500 fine to be paid immediately. Cabezuela was also required to 

contribute a portion of his income to the halfway house should he become a 

resident. 

Cabezuela challenges these two deviations between the oral 

pronouncement at sentencing and the written judgment. “Whether an appeal 

is moot [or ripe] is a jurisdictional matter, since it implicates the Article III 

requirement that there be a live case or controversy.” United States v. 

Ramirez-Gonzalez, 840 F.3d 240, 243 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation 

omitted). Questions of mootness and ripeness are reviewed de novo. Id.; 

United States v. Magana, 837 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2016).

Regarding the fine, the district court, during this appeal, granted the 

Government’s unopposed motion to amend the judgment, deleted the 

requirement that the fine be paid immediately, and established a payment 

schedule. Therefore, in the amended judgment, the court provided Cabezuela 

the relief he requested for that issue. Accordingly, it is moot because, 

obviously, “it [is] impossible for th[is] court to grant any effectual relief” to 

Cabezuela, Ramirez-Gonzalez, 840 F.3d at 244; and his challenge to his $500 

fine must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, United States v. 

 Case: 17-50666 Document: 00514489719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2018
No. 17-50666

3

Shartzer, 705 F. App’x 265, 271 (5th Cir. 2017) (dismissing challenge to 

supervised-release conditions as moot where deviations in written judgment 

were deleted in an amended judgment pursuant to an unopposed motion by 

the Government); United States v. Miller, 343 F. App’x 973, 973–74 (5th Cir. 

2009) (same).

Concerning the halfway-house condition, Cabezuela’s challenge is not 

ripe. The possibility he will reside in the halfway house and pay a portion of 

his income while there is too dependent on uncertain future events to be ripe 

for review; it is impossible to determine if he will be released in the El Paso 

area, if he will have an alternative place to stay, or if he will have income to 

contribute to the halfway house. Magana, 837 F.3d at 459. Importantly, 

Cabezuela did not submit a reply brief in response to the Government’s 

position on this point. See United States v. Stone, 291 F. App’x 684, 685 (5th 

Cir. 2008) (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where appellant did not 

address jurisdiction in his opening brief and did not file a reply brief). 

Accordingly, Cabezuela’s challenge to this supervised-release condition is not 

ripe, and must also be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Magana, 837 F.3d at 

459–60.

DISMISSED.

 Case: 17-50666 Document: 00514489719 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/29/2018