United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40646

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Oscar Alejandro Zapata, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:19-CR-94-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Oscar Alejandro Zapata, federal prisoner # 97037-479, pled guilty to 

conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens within the United States for 

financial gain. He was sentenced to 24 months in prison, followed by two 

years of supervised release. The district court imposed several conditions of 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

May 23, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40646 Document: 00516329125 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2022
No. 21-40646

2

supervised release, including the special condition that Zapata participate in 

an inpatient or outpatient substance abuse treatment program. Zapata’s term 

of supervised release began on March 26, 2021. 

On August 25, 2021, the district court found that Zapata had violated 

the terms of his supervision by committing two additional law violations and

by failing to participate in substance abuse treatment. The court revoked 

Zapata’s supervised release and sentenced him to six months in prison, 

followed by a one-year term of supervised release. The court ordered, as 

conditions of supervision, that Zapata participate in both mental health and 

substance abuse treatment programs. The court designated Zapata’s 

substance abuse treatment as “outpatient,” but further ordered that he

“participate in a community treatment center, halfway house, or similar 

facility for a period of up to 180 days” following his release. 

Zapata now asserts that the district court erred by imposing up to 180 

days of community confinement without supporting evidence or explanation. 

Because Zapata failed to object to this special condition in the district court, 

we review only for plain error. See United States v. Hinojosa, 956 F.3d 331,

334 (5th Cir. 2020); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 

Though district courts have broad discretion to impose special conditions of 

supervised release, three requirements must be met:

First, the condition must be reasonably related to one of four 

factors in § 3553(a): (1) the nature and circumstances of the 

offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; 

(2) the adequate deterrence of criminal conduct; (3) the 

protection of the public from further crimes of the defendant; 

and (4) the provision of needed educational or vocational 

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. 

Second, the condition cannot impose any greater deprivation 

of liberty than is reasonably necessary to advance deterrence, 

protect the public from the defendant, and advance the 

Case: 21-40646 Document: 00516329125 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2022
No. 21-40646

3

defendant’s correctional needs. Third, the condition must be 

consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the 

Sentencing Commission. 

Hinojosa, 956 F.3d at 334 (quoting United States v. Hathorn, 920 F.3d 982, 

984 (5th Cir. 2019)); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)–(3). District courts must 

provide factual findings to justify the imposition of special conditions of 

supervised release. United States v. Salazar, 743 F.3d 445, 451 (5th Cir. 

2014). But absent such findings, we “may nevertheless affirm a special 

condition ‘where the [district] court’s reasoning can be inferred after an 

examination of the record.’” United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 275 

(5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Salazar, 743 F.3d at 451). 

Zapata does not dispute that the mental health and substance abuse 

treatment conditions “find ample record support.” Unlike those conditions, 

he argues, the community confinement condition “is improper because the 

district court failed to explain any basis for imposing it and the record 

contains no evidence to justify its imposition.” 

But the district court explained the need for Zapata to have mental 

health and substance abuse treatment in either an inpatient or outpatient 

setting. The district court heard from Zapata and his counsel about his lack 

of self-discipline and control, which led to his failure to participate in the 

originally imposed treatment. And after consulting with the probation 

officer, the district court selected outpatient treatment. It may be inferred 

from the record that the district court imposed community confinement for 

the purpose of providing Zapata with the support and structure that would 

allow him to be treated successfully for his mental health and substance abuse 

issues on an outpatient basis. Consequently, Zapata has not shown error, 

plain or otherwise, in the district court’s imposition of community 

confinement. See Hinojosa, 956 F.3d at 334–35. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-40646 Document: 00516329125 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2022