Court Opinion

ID: 9642519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:01:19.331297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:52:47.797272
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-50067         Document: 00516866881               Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/22/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 21-50067
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                August 22, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Michael Corral,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:20-CR-357-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *1
          Michael Corral pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to
   transporting       illegal   aliens    for    financial     gain    under       8 U.S.C.
   § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)(i). The district court sentenced him within the

          _____________________
          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
          1
              Judge Haynes concurs in the judgment only.
Case: 21-50067       Document: 00516866881         Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/22/2023

                                    No. 21-50067

   advisory guidelines range to 30 months’ imprisonment and three years’
   supervised release. The Western District of Texas has a standing order
   setting forth the standard conditions of supervised release. At the sentencing
   hearing, the district court imposed the “standard and mandatory conditions
   of supervision” without explicitly stating the standing order was the source
   of those conditions. Nor did the pre-sentence report mention the standing
   order.     Corral’s written judgment included mandatory and standard
   conditions which are identical to those in the Western District of Texas’s
   standing order. Corral timely appealed. The Federal Public Defender
   appointed to represent Corral on appeal moved to withdraw in accordance
   with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). This court denied the motion.
            Corral contends that the court’s imposition of the standard and
   mandatory conditions detailed in the court-wide standing order was invalid
   because the conditions were never properly pronounced as required by
   United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 556–59 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding the
   district court must pronounce conditions of supervised release unless their
   imposition is required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)).       Because Corral did not
   object when the district court pronounced that it was imposing the standard
   and mandatory conditions, he forfeited his objection. See United States v.
   Martinez, 15 F 4th 1179, 1181 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Joshua Martinez”). Thus, our
   review is for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 47 F.4th 364, 366 (5th
   Cir. 2022) (“Alexander Martinez”).
            The district court did not err. “[O]ral pronouncement does not mean
   that the sentencing court must recite the conditions word-for-word.” United
   States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2020). Rather, it is enough for
   the court to make oral short-hand reference to “standard conditions” that
   exist in the court’s standing order. See United States v. Vargas, 23 F.4th 526,
   528 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding that the “key observations” were the court’s
   reference to the standard conditions and the standing order) (citing Joshua

                                         2
Case: 21-50067      Document: 00516866881           Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/22/2023

                                     No. 21-50067

   Martinez, 15 F.4th at 1181); Diggles, 957 F.3d at 560-63 & n.5; see also United
   States v. Baez-Adriano, 74 F.4th 292, 299 n.3 (5th Cir. 2023) (collecting
   cases). Furthermore, it is irrelevant whether the PSR mentions the standard
   conditions. See Vargas, 23 F.4th at 528.
          At the sentencing hearing the district court made sufficient short-
   hand reference to the standing order by imposing “standard and mandatory
   conditions of supervision.” See Joshua Martinez, 15 F.4th at 1181. Corral did
   not object. The conditions in the standing order tracked those imposed in
   the written judgment. See Alexander Martinez, 47 F.4th at 368. The district
   court, thus, did not err, let alone “seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or
   public reputation of judicial proceedings” generally. Puckett v. United States,
   556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009) (internal quotation marks
   omitted).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3