Court Opinion

ID: 9375326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:46.466329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.341319
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50243     Document: 00516654727         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/23/2023

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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                     February 23, 2023
                                  No. 22-50243                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Anthony Regalado,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 5:11-CR-976-1

   Before Jones, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Anthony Regalado was sentenced to 15 months in prison with
   40 months of supervised release upon revocation of a prior term of
   supervision. He appeals, arguing that one of the conditions imposed on his
   new term of supervised release is unconstitutionally vague. See United States
   v. Abbate, 970 F.3d 601, 603-04 (5th Cir. 2020). That condition requires him,

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 22-50243      Document: 00516654727            Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/23/2023

                                      No. 22-50243

   as directed by his probation officer, to notify third parties of risks that could
   be occasioned by the defendant’s criminal record, personal history, or
   characteristics. Regalado is also required to permit the probation officer to
   make such notifications and to confirm that Regalado is complying with the
   notification requirement.
          Regalado did not object to the condition in the district court, so our
   review is for plain error. See United States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348, 352 (5th
   Cir. 2020). To prevail under the plain-error standard, a defendant must show
   a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights.
   Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
          Because “any error cannot be plain” where the law is unsettled,
   United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 799, 805 (5th Cir. 2015), “lack of binding
   authority is often dispositive in the plain-error context,” United States v.
   Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015). Regalado, who acknowledges
   that this court has not addressed whether the language in question is
   impermissibly vague, fails to establish that the error alleged was plain
   notwithstanding the absence of such precedent. He has accordingly not
   made the requisite showing. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
          AFFIRMED.

                                           2