Court Opinion

ID: 9375329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:47.458626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.820806
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40179         Document: 00516652427             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/22/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-40179
                                                                             FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                 February 22, 2023
                                     ____________
                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                 Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Cuahutemoc Mendoza-Alcasar,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 7:20-CR-946-5
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Cuahutemoc Mendoza-Alcasar appeals his sentence following his jury
   trial conviction of possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more
   of cocaine and being an alien in unlawful possession of a firearm. He
   contends that there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of his
   sentence and the special conditions of supervised release in the written

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40179        Document: 00516652427              Page: 2       Date Filed: 02/22/2023

                                          No. 22-40179

   judgment. Specifically, he challenges the written judgment’s inclusion of
   special conditions requiring him to: (1) report to United States Immigration
   and Customs Enforcement and follow their instructions and reporting
   requirements until any deportation proceedings are completed; (2) not
   illegally reenter the United States; (3) report to the nearest probation office
   within 72 hours of his return if he were to reenter the United States; and
   (4) seek proper documentation authorizing him to work in the United States.
   The Government agrees that a conflict exists with regard to the third and
   fourth special conditions.1
           The four special conditions were not mandated by 18 U.S.C.
   § 3583(d), so the district court was required to pronounce them. See United
   States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). The conditions
   were not included in Mendoza-Alcasar’s presentence report, orally
   pronounced, or otherwise referred to at sentencing.                   Mendoza-Alcasar
   therefore did not have an opportunity to object to the conditions at
   sentencing, and we will review for an abuse of discretion. See id. at 559–60;
   United States v. Gomez, 960 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 2020).
           The first and second special conditions constitute mere ambiguities
   with the district court’s oral pronouncement. See United States v. Vasquez-
   Puente, 922 F.3d 700, 703–04 (5th Cir. 2019) (finding ambiguity rather than
   conflict between oral and written sentences); see also United States v. Perez-
   Espinoza, 31 F.4th 988, 989 (5th Cir. 2022). For the first special condition,
   the record reflects that the condition is consistent with the district court’s
   intent that Mendoza-Alcasar be deported after his prison term. See Vasquez-

           _____________________
           1
             Contrary to the Government’s argument on appeal, Mendoza-Alcasar has not
   abandoned through inadequate briefing his claims of a conflict concerning the first, second,
   and fourth special conditions. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); cf. United States v.
   Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 295 (5th Cir. 1986).

                                                2
Case: 22-40179        Document: 00516652427         Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/22/2023

                                     No. 22-40179

   Puente, 922 F.3d at 703–05. The second special condition does not conflict
   with the district court’s oral pronouncement because it merely restated the
   mandatory condition that Mendoza-Alcasar not commit another federal
   crime. See id. at 705. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion
   by including these special conditions in the written judgment. See id.
          As for the third and fourth special conditions on these facts, we are
   persuaded by Mendoza-Alcasar’s argument and the Government’s
   concession that the imposition of these conditions in the written judgment
   created an impermissible conflict that constituted an abuse of discretion. See
   Diggles, 957 F.3d at 560–63; United States v. Bigelow, 462 F.3d 378, 383–84
   (5th Cir. 2006).
          Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is VACATED in part, and
   the matter is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of
   conforming the written judgment with the oral pronouncement of sentence
   as to the third and fourth special conditions. The judgment is AFFIRMED
   in all other respects.

                                          3