United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-20002 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Rigoberto Suazo-Euceda, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:21-CR-341-1 

______________________________ 

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Rigoberto Suazo-Euceda pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry 

after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He was 

sentenced to 57 months of imprisonment, to be followed by three years of 

supervised release. As part of his sentence, the district court included 

supervised release conditions that Suazo-Euceda participate in cognitive 

_____________________ 

*

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

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

November 7, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-20002 Document: 00516958884 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
No. 23-20002 

2 

behavior therapy (CBT) and mental health treatment programs. The district 

court’s oral pronouncement did not specify whether Suazo-Euceda was 

required to pay the costs of either program. The written judgment, however, 

ordered that the costs of CBT be paid for by Suazo-Euceda and that the costs 

of mental health treatment be paid for by Suazo-Euceda, if he was financially 

able. On appeal, Suazo-Euceda first challenges the imposition of both CBT 

and mental health treatment programs as special conditions of supervised 

release without sufficient explanation or evidence as to why both were 

necessary. 

Because Suazo-Euceda did not object to the imposition of both special 

conditions before the district court, we review for plain error. United States 

v. Bree, 927 F.3d 856, 859 (5th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, he must show an 

error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett 

v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this 

court has the discretion to correct the error if it “seriously affects the 

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

quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted). Ordinarily, the court 

“do[es] not find plain error when [it has] not previously addressed an issue.” 

United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

Suazo-Euceda cites no binding precedent stating that the imposition 

of both CBT and mental health treatment programs constitutes error. 

Additionally, contrary to Suazo-Euceda’s assertion, the record evidence 

supports a finding that both CBT and mental health treatment conditions 

were warranted. At most, his argument that the court erred in this regard is 

subject to reasonable debate; thus, he cannot establish clear or obvious error. 

See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Accordingly, Suazo-Euceda cannot demonstrate 

that the district court plainly erred by imposing both CBT and mental health 

treatment programs as special conditions of his supervised release. See id. 

Case: 23-20002 Document: 00516958884 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/07/2023
No. 23-20002 

3 

Next, Suazo-Euceda challenges the requirement in the written 

judgment that he pay the costs of the CBT program, without regard for his 

ability to do so. Because the district court did not orally state at sentencing 

that Suazo-Euceda must pay the costs of the CBT program, Suazo-Euceda 

had no opportunity to object to that portion of the condition, and review is 

for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th 

Cir. 2020) (en banc). The parties agree and the record reflects that the 

requirement that Suazo-Euceda pay for the costs of CBT, without 

consideration of his financial ability, is inconsistent the court’s intent in 

imposing the conditions of supervised release. This court has the discretion 

to modify special conditions to conform them to the district court’s apparent 

intent without vacating or remanding to the district court. United States v. 

Abbate, 970 F.3d 601, 607 n.36 (5th Cir. 2020); see 28 U.S.C. § 2106. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM and MODIFY the judgment to reflect 

that Suazo-Euceda pay the costs of the CBT program, if financially able. 

Case: 23-20002 Document: 00516958884 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/07/2023