### 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 followin g 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* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 05/29/2018No. 17

- 50666

2 Cabezuela pleaded guilty without a p lea agreement to the two offenses. The district c ourt imposed concurrent , within

- G uidelines sentences of 100 months ’ imprisonment and four years ’ supervised release. At sentenci ng, the

co urt’s oral pro nouncement 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, t he written judgment required the $500 fine to be paid immediately. Cabezuela wa s 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)

. Q uestions of mootness and ripeness are reviewed de novo

. Id. ; United States v. Magana , 837 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2016). Regarding the fine, th e district court , during this appeal, granted the Government’s unopposed motion to amend the judgment , delet ed the requirement that the fine be paid immediately , and establish ed a payment schedule

. Therefore, i n the amended judgment, the court provided Cabezuela the relief he requested for that issue

. Accordingly, it is moot because , obviously, “it [is] impossib le for th[is] court to grant any effectual relief” to Cabezuela, Ramirez

- Gonzalez , 840 F.3d at 2 44; and his challenge to his $500 fine must b e dismissed for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction , United States v. Case: 17-50666 Document: 00514489719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2018No. 17

- 50666

3 Shartzer , 705 F. App’x 265, 271 (5th Cir. 201 7) (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, 97 3

– 7 4 (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