United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-10305 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Roy Dean Jacquot, III, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:20-CR-162-1 

______________________________ 

Before Haynes and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges, and deGravelles, 

District Judge.

1

Per Curiam:*

Appellant Roy Dean Jacquot III (“Jacquot”) appeals conditions of his 

supervised release that include a provision that he “shall participate in a 

program inpatient and/or outpatient approved by the U.S. Probation Office 

_____________________ 

1

 United States District Judge for the Middle District of Louisiana, sitting by 

designation. 

*

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

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 14, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-10305 

2 

for treatment of narcotic, drug[,] or alcohol dependency.” For the reasons 

explained below, we dismiss the appeal. 

I. Background 

In 2020, Roy Dean Jacquot, III, pleaded guilty to one count of 

possession of stolen mail. The district court sentenced him to 11 months in 

prison and two years of supervised release. Jacquot’s supervised release 

began on September 10, 2021. His conditions of supervised release precluded 

him from possessing illegal controlled substances, required him to participate 

in an outpatient program approved by the probation officer for treatment of 

narcotic or drug or alcohol dependency, and mandated that he abstain from 

the use of alcohol and all other intoxicants during and after completion of 

treatment. 

In November 2021, the probation officer, with the consent of Jacquot, 

requested that the conditions of supervised release be modified, because 

Jacquot began to use and possess methamphetamine and failed to attend and 

to participate in outpatient treatment. Jacquot informed his probation officer 

that he would like to enter inpatient substance abuse treatment and to 

participate in mental health counseling. The petition therefore requested the 

addition of supervised release conditions that required Jacquot to take part in 

mental health treatment services as directed by the probation officer until 

successfully discharged and to participate in an inpatient and/or outpatient 

substance abuse treatment program approved by the United States Probation 

Office. The district court granted the request and added the conditions of 

supervised release. 

Shortly thereafter, the probation officer filed a report that detailed 

Jacquot’s failure to adhere to the conditions of his supervision. The probation 

officer set forth that Jacquot had used and possessed controlled substances 

on multiple instances. The probation officer detailed that Jacquot had 

Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-10305 

3 

entered inpatient substance abuse treatment and was undergoing evaluations 

to address his potential physical and behavioral health issues. 

In February 2022, the probation officer filed a petition which alleged 

that Jacquot had possessed illegal controlled substances and had failed to 

comply with the special conditions that required him to refrain from using 

controlled substances and to participate in substance abuse treatment and 

testing programs. The petition also alleged that Jacquot violated the standard 

conditions that required him to report to his probation officer as instructed 

and that mandated that he reside at a place approved by the probation officer 

and provide notification of an address change. An arrest warrant was issued. 

At the ensuing revocation hearing, Jacquot pleaded true to each of the 

allegations in the petition. The district court found that Jacquot violated the 

conditions of his supervision and revoked his supervised release. The district 

court sentenced him to eight months in prison—which was within the 

advisory guidelines range and less than the statutory maximum sentence—

and ordered a 24-month term of supervised release. In addition, the district 

court reimposed the conditions of supervised release in the criminal 

judgment, as later modified, and discussed mandatory and standard 

conditions with which Jacquot had to comply. The district court also orally 

pronounced that Jacquot “shall participate in a program inpatient and/or 

outpatient approved by the U.S. Probation Office for treatment of narcotic, 

drug[,] or alcohol dependency.” Jacquot did not make an objection. Jacquot 

filed a timely appeal. 

II. Legal Standard 

Because Jacquot did not object to the imposition of the condition that 

he participate in an inpatient or outpatient drug rehabilitation program, and 

because he had notice of the condition and the opportunity to object in the 

district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 

Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-10305 

4 

551, 559 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). To show plain error, Jacquot “must show 

that (1) the district court erred; (2) the error was clear and obvious; and (3) 

the error affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Vargas, 21 F.4th 

332, 334 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009)). If Jacquot makes that showing, this court should exercise its 

discretion to correct the error if the error “seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Molina-Martinez v. 

United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016).

III. Discussion 

A. Fugitive Disentitlement 

During the pendency of this appeal, Jacquot failed to appear before the 

District Court for the Northern District of Texas at a hearing to determine 

whether his supervised relief should be revoked. The district court issued a 

bench warrant for Jacquot’s arrest, and today Jacquot remains a fugitive. The 

fugitive-disentitlement doctrine permits a court to dismiss a defendant’s 

appeal if he flees while the appeal is pending. “It has been settled for well 

over a century that an appellate court may dismiss the appeal of a defendant 

who is a fugitive from justice during the pendency of his appeal.” See OrtegaRodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 239 (1993). The rationale for the 

doctrine includes concerns about the enforceability of the appellate court’s 

judgment against the fugitive, see Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (1876); 

the belief that flight “disentitles” the fugitive to relief, see Molinaro v. New 

Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366 (1970); and the desire to promote the “efficient 

dignified operation” of the appellate court, see Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 

534, 537 (1975). 

A term of supervised release is an integral part of a judgment and 

sentence, a period within which an offender can be reintegrated into society 

under the supervision of the criminal justice system. This court will not 

Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-10305 

5 

diminish the importance of that period by disregarding the status of those 

who become fugitives during supervised release. Upon careful consideration, 

we apply the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine to this case, and we hold this 

appeal is subject to dismissal pursuant to the fugitive-disentitlement 

doctrine. 

B. Delegation to Probation 

Alternatively, we would affirm the judgment of the district court for 

the following reasons. Jacquot argues that the district court erred by 

delegating the option to choose between inpatient and outpatient drug rehab 

treatment to Jacquot’s probation officer. “While probation officers may 

‘manage aspects of sentences’ and oversee the conditions of supervised 

release, a probation officer may not exercise the ‘core judicial function’ of 

imposing a sentence, ‘including the terms and conditions of supervised 

release.’” United States v. Martinez, 987 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2021) 

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

In Martinez, we considered a nearly identical condition of release and 

ruled that due to the criminal defendant’s “short ten-month sentence, the 

district court should not have delegated the decision to further restrict a 

defendant’s liberty during the course of treatment while on supervised 

release.” Martinez, 987 F.3d at 436 (5th Cir. 2021). However, Martinez was 

not a plain error case and is thus not dispositive. We will nonetheless assume 

arguendo that Jacquot has met the first three prongs of the plain error review. 

Nonetheless, we conclude that we should not exercise our discretion in his 

favor because of the particular facts here. Jacquot previously requested a 

modification of his conditions of supervised release from outpatient 

treatment to inpatient treatment which the district court agreed to. 

Accordingly, at this sentencing, the district court was merely reinstating that 

which Jacquot had previously requested and agreed to and which he did not 

Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-10305 

6 

object to. Indeed, his conduct since demonstrates why he wanted and needed 

the inpatient treatment. Thus, we do not find that any error in this regard 

“seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.” Molina-Martinez 578 U.S. at 194. Thus, in the alternative, we 

affirm the district court. 

IV. Conclusion 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/14/2023