United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50028

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Sonia Renee Hernandez, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-472-1 

______________________________

Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Sonia Renee Hernandez, federal prisoner # 76187-380, pleaded guilty 

to transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)(1). Hernandez’s supervised release commenced 

on February 28, 2020. The probation officer alleged that Hernandez violated 

the terms of her release by committing another crime, driving while 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 21, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50028 Document: 00516903118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 23-50028

2

intoxicated with a child passenger. The district court found that there was 

ample evidence that Hernandez violated the terms of her supervised release, 

revoked her supervised release, and sentenced her to 18 months in prison. 

Hernandez first argues that the district court violated her due process 

right to confront the witnesses against her, insofar as it allowed the probation 

officer to give hearsay testimony about the contents of the arresting police 

officer’s report without a showing of good cause. “Defendants in supervised 

release revocation proceedings have a qualified right to confront witnesses.” 

United States v. Jimison, 825 F.3d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 2016). While Hernandez 

argues that she preserved error by the arguments made after the close of

evidence, closing argument that is general and far removed from the relevant 

testimony cannot be construed as a relevant objection. See United States v. 

McDowell, 973 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir. 2020).

Unpreserved errors are subject to plain error review. HolguinHernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 764 (2020). Under the plain error 

standard, Hernandez must show that the district court committed a clear and 

obvious error that affected her substantial rights, that is, that it affected the 

outcome of the proceedings. See McDowell, 973 F.3d at 365-66; Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). She has not shown a clear or obvious 

error. See McDowell, 973 F.3d at 366 (“There is no authority requiring a 

specific good-cause finding in the absence of an objection.”).

Hernandez also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support 

the district court’s decision to revoke her supervised release. In reviewing 

challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in revocation hearings, we “view 

the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the 

evidence in a light most favorable to the government.” United States v.

Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted); see United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 835-36 (5th Cir.

Case: 23-50028 Document: 00516903118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 23-50028

3

1996) (holding that regardless of acquittal by a jury, revocation court had 

sufficient evidence to support a finding of a violation). The probation 

officer’s testimony regarding the police officer’s arrest report was 

corroborated by Hernandez’s testimony as to the circumstances of her arrest. 

When viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, this evidence 

was sufficient to support the district court’s conclusion that there was ample 

evidence to show that Hernandez had committed the criminal offense of 

driving while intoxicated with a child passenger and had violated the terms of 

her supervised release.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-50028 Document: 00516903118 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2023