IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10988

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ALFREDO MAYORAL,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-46-1

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Mayoral challenges the supervised-release condition of his 

sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for passing and uttering 

counterfeit currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 472 and 2. He contends the 

condition’s requiring him to provide his probation officer any requested 

financial information was inadequately justified by the court; is plainly 

unreasonable; and violates his constitutional-liberty interests.

* 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

June 9, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10988 Document: 00513541713 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2016
No. 14-10988

Mayoral may have waived a challenge to the supervised-release 

condition by signing the form acknowledging the condition at issue and 

agreeing to be bound it; “[n]evertheless, out of an abundance of caution, we will 

review for plain error”. United States v. Fernandez-Cusco, 447 F.3d 382, 384 

(5th Cir. 2006). Under that standard, Mayoral must show a forfeited plain 

(clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct 

the reversible plain error, but should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the 

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id.

Generally, the court has broad discretion to impose special conditions of 

supervised release. United States v. Fernandez, 776 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 

2015). That discretion is limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), which requires the 

conditions to be “reasonably related” to the relevant factors provided in 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a): the nature and circumstances of the offense and defendant’s 

history and characteristics; affording adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; 

protecting the public from further crimes by defendant; and providing 

defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or 

other correctional treatment. See United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 275 

(5th Cir. 2015). The special condition must impose “no greater deprivation of 

liberty than is reasonably necessary” to serve the last three of the above 

§ 3553(a) factors, and it must be consistent with any relevant policy statements 

in the Sentencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2)–(3).

At sentencing, contrary to Mayoral’s assertion, the court explained that 

his sentence satisfied the need to protect the public, impose a fair punishment 

for the offense, and deter Mayoral from future offenses of this type. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(d). It referred to the nature of the offense and his relevant

criminal history, which included other offenses of a financial-fraud nature. 

2

 Case: 14-10988 Document: 00513541713 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2016
No. 14-10988

These references support that the court considered the relevant § 3553(a)

factors in imposing the sentence, and determined the financial-information 

condition appropriate. See United States v. Sealed Juvenile, 781 F.3d 747, 752 

(5th Cir. 2015). Additionally, the Guidelines recommend a supervised-release

condition requiring the defendant to provide access to any requested financial 

information if the court “imposes an order of . . . forfeiture”, as it did here. 

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(3) (p.s.). 

Therefore, for plain-error purposes, Mayoral fails: to show the sentence 

was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing, protect the 

public, and deter such crimes in the future, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); Caravayo, 

809 F.3d at 275; and, failing to show clear or obvious error regarding the 

condition’s meeting the tailoring requirements of § 3583(d), also fails to show 

such error concerning the condition’s not violating his constitutional-liberty 

interests, see Caravayo, 809 F.3d at 274. 

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-10988 Document: 00513541713 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2016