Court Opinion

ID: 9841227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 18:01:00.568236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:20.504322
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-10200         Document: 00516903042             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/21/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 20-10200
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                             September 21, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Antonio Misael Rivera-Lopez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:19-CR-243-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Defendant-Appellant Antonio Misael Rivera-Lopez pleaded guilty to
   conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He now
   appeals his sentence on two grounds.
          Rivera-Lopez first contends that the district court impermissibly
   denied hearing testimony from his family members relating to his history and

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 20-10200     Document: 00516903042          Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/21/2023

                                   No. 20-10200

   personal characteristics at sentencing. We review that contention for plain
   error because it was not preserved below. See United States v. Suarez, 879
   F.3d 626, 635 (5th Cir. 2018). The record makes clear that the evidence in
   question would have been redundant. Rivera-Lopez and his wife provided the
   probation officer with background and character evidence, which was
   included in the presentence report (PSR). The value of any additional
   character evidence is far too speculative here to support a finding of plain
   error. See United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (“[A defendant’s] speculation does not support a finding of reversible plain
   error.”).
          Rivera-Lopez next contends that the district court’s oral
   pronouncement of the sentence conflicts with the standard conditions of
   supervised release imposed in the written judgment. The standard conditions
   listed in the written judgment were not discussed expressly at sentencing.
   The court only stated that the defendant “shall comply with the standard
   conditions of supervised release that will be set forth in the judgment of
   conviction and sentence.” Rivera-Lopez’s written judgment included
   discretionary conditions of supervised release that are not required by 18
   U.S.C. § 3583(d). Those conditions must be pronounced at sentencing, but
   they were not. See United States v. Martinez, 47 F.4th 364, 367-68 (5th Cir.
   2022). The Government agrees that we should remand this case and order
   the unpronounced conditions stricken. See id.; see also United States v.
   Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). The parties’ position is
   appropriate, so we vacate that part of the judgment and remand the case with
   instructions that the unpronounced standard conditions of supervised release
   must be stricken from the written judgment. See Martinez, 47 F.4th at 367-
   68.
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED in part and
   VACATED and REMANDED in part.

                                         2