United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40586

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Paulita Gallegos Roblez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:20-CR-862-2

Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Paulita Gallegos Roblez pleaded guilty to importation of 

methamphetamine and heroin and was sentenced within the advisory 

guidelines range to 168 months of imprisonment and three years of 

supervised release. On appeal, Roblez argues that the written judgment 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

November 1, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40586 Document: 00516529494 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2022
No. 21-40586

2

conflicts with the oral pronouncement because the district court did not 

pronounce conditions of supervised release ordering her to undergo 

substance abuse testing, follow instructions of prescription medication, and 

refrain from possessing or using psychoactive substances. Additionally, she 

challenges a supervised release condition that states, “If the probation officer 

determines that you pose a risk to another person (including an organization), 

the probation officer may require you to notify the person about the risk.” 

As to the first issue, we pretermit the question of the proper standard 

of review because Roblez cannot succeed under either standard. See United 

States v. Pursley, 22 F.4th 586, 591 (5th Cir. 2022); United States v. Grogan, 

977 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2020). A defendant’s due process right to be 

present at sentencing requires the district court to orally pronounce any 

discretionary condition of supervised release that is not required by 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(d). United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 557-59 (5th Cir.) (en banc), 

cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 825 (2020). A conflict occurs when an unpronounced 

discretionary condition is included in the judgment, in which case the oral 

pronouncement controls, and the written judgment must be amended 

accordingly. See Grogan, 977 F.3d at 352; Diggles, 957 F.3d at 559, 563. In 

light of Roblez’s history of substance abuse and the district court’s oral 

pronouncement of a supervised release condition that required Roblez to 

participate in substance and alcohol abuse treatment, the disputed conditions 

did not conflict with the oral pronouncement of sentence. See United States 

v. Mireles, 471 F.3d 551, 558 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Warden, 291 

F.3d 363, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2002).

Because Roblez had advance notice of the risk notification condition, 

we review her challenge to it for plain error. See United States v. MejiaBanegas, 32 F.4th 450, 451 (5th Cir. 2022); Grogan, 977 F.3d at 352. We have 

held that the imposition of similar risk notification conditions does not

constitute clear or obvious error. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th at 451 (no error); 

Case: 21-40586 Document: 00516529494 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2022
No. 21-40586

3

United States v. Henderson, 29 F.4th 273, 276 (5th Cir. 2022) (no clear error); 

see also United States v. Barber, 865 F.3d 837, 839 (5th Cir. 2017).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-40586 Document: 00516529494 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/01/2022