Court Opinion

ID: 9895707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 16:01:20.23094+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:23.954312
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20002        Document: 00516958884             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                     ____________                                        Fifth Circuit

                                                                                       FILED
                                      No. 23-20002                              November 7, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                          Clerk

   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.
Case: 23-20002      Document: 00516958884            Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                      No. 23-20002

   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.

                                           2
Case: 23-20002      Document: 00516958884          Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                    No. 23-20002

          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.

                                         3