Court Opinion

ID: 9409030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 18:00:50.224683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.454575
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10305         Document: 00516820856             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/14/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                         July 14, 2023
                                       No. 22-10305
                                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                           Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Roy Dean Jacquot, III,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:20-CR-162-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Haynes and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges, and deGravelles,
   District Judge.1
   Per Curiam:*
          Appellant Roy Dean Jacquot III (“Jacquot”) appeals conditions of his
   supervised release that include a provision that he “shall participate in a
   program inpatient and/or outpatient approved by the U.S. Probation Office

          _____________________
          1
             United States District Judge for the Middle District of Louisiana, sitting by
   designation.
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10305      Document: 00516820856          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                    No. 22-10305

   for treatment of narcotic, drug[,] or alcohol dependency.” For the reasons
   explained below, we dismiss the appeal.
                                  I. Background
          In 2020, Roy Dean Jacquot, III, pleaded guilty to one count of
   possession of stolen mail. The district court sentenced him to 11 months in
   prison and two years of supervised release. Jacquot’s supervised release
   began on September 10, 2021. His conditions of supervised release precluded
   him from possessing illegal controlled substances, required him to participate
   in an outpatient program approved by the probation officer for treatment of
   narcotic or drug or alcohol dependency, and mandated that he abstain from
   the use of alcohol and all other intoxicants during and after completion of
   treatment.

          In November 2021, the probation officer, with the consent of Jacquot,
   requested that the conditions of supervised release be modified, because
   Jacquot began to use and possess methamphetamine and failed to attend and
   to participate in outpatient treatment. Jacquot informed his probation officer
   that he would like to enter inpatient substance abuse treatment and to
   participate in mental health counseling. The petition therefore requested the
   addition of supervised release conditions that required Jacquot to take part in
   mental health treatment services as directed by the probation officer until
   successfully discharged and to participate in an inpatient and/or outpatient
   substance abuse treatment program approved by the United States Probation
   Office. The district court granted the request and added the conditions of
   supervised release.
          Shortly thereafter, the probation officer filed a report that detailed
   Jacquot’s failure to adhere to the conditions of his supervision. The probation
   officer set forth that Jacquot had used and possessed controlled substances
   on multiple instances. The probation officer detailed that Jacquot had

                                         2
Case: 22-10305      Document: 00516820856           Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                     No. 22-10305

   entered inpatient substance abuse treatment and was undergoing evaluations
   to address his potential physical and behavioral health issues.
          In February 2022, the probation officer filed a petition which alleged
   that Jacquot had possessed illegal controlled substances and had failed to
   comply with the special conditions that required him to refrain from using
   controlled substances and to participate in substance abuse treatment and
   testing programs. The petition also alleged that Jacquot violated the standard
   conditions that required him to report to his probation officer as instructed
   and that mandated that he reside at a place approved by the probation officer
   and provide notification of an address change. An arrest warrant was issued.
          At the ensuing revocation hearing, Jacquot pleaded true to each of the
   allegations in the petition. The district court found that Jacquot violated the
   conditions of his supervision and revoked his supervised release. The district
   court sentenced him to eight months in prison—which was within the
   advisory guidelines range and less than the statutory maximum sentence—
   and ordered a 24-month term of supervised release. In addition, the district
   court reimposed the conditions of supervised release in the criminal
   judgment, as later modified, and discussed mandatory and standard
   conditions with which Jacquot had to comply. The district court also orally
   pronounced that Jacquot “shall participate in a program inpatient and/or
   outpatient approved by the U.S. Probation Office for treatment of narcotic,
   drug[,] or alcohol dependency.” Jacquot did not make an objection. Jacquot
   filed a timely appeal.
                                 II. Legal Standard
          Because Jacquot did not object to the imposition of the condition that
   he participate in an inpatient or outpatient drug rehabilitation program, and
   because he had notice of the condition and the opportunity to object in the
   district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d

                                          3
Case: 22-10305        Document: 00516820856        Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                    No. 22-10305

   551, 559 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). To show plain error, Jacquot “must show
   that (1) the district court erred; (2) the error was clear and obvious; and (3)
   the error affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Vargas, 21 F.4th
   332, 334 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
   (2009)). If Jacquot makes that showing, this court should exercise its
   discretion to correct the error if the error “seriously affects the fairness,
   integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Molina-Martinez v.
   United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016).
                                      III. Discussion
          A. Fugitive Disentitlement
          During the pendency of this appeal, Jacquot failed to appear before the
   District Court for the Northern District of Texas at a hearing to determine
   whether his supervised relief should be revoked. The district court issued a
   bench warrant for Jacquot’s arrest, and today Jacquot remains a fugitive. The
   fugitive-disentitlement doctrine permits a court to dismiss a defendant’s
   appeal if he flees while the appeal is pending. “It has been settled for well
   over a century that an appellate court may dismiss the appeal of a defendant
   who is a fugitive from justice during the pendency of his appeal.” See Ortega-
   Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 239 (1993). The rationale for the
   doctrine includes concerns about the enforceability of the appellate court’s
   judgment against the fugitive, see Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (1876);
   the belief that flight “disentitles” the fugitive to relief, see Molinaro v. New
   Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366 (1970); and the desire to promote the “efficient
   dignified operation” of the appellate court, see Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S.
   534, 537 (1975).
          A term of supervised release is an integral part of a judgment and
   sentence, a period within which an offender can be reintegrated into society
   under the supervision of the criminal justice system. This court will not

                                          4
Case: 22-10305      Document: 00516820856          Page: 5   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                    No. 22-10305

   diminish the importance of that period by disregarding the status of those
   who become fugitives during supervised release. Upon careful consideration,
   we apply the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine to this case, and we hold this
   appeal is subject to dismissal pursuant to the fugitive-disentitlement
   doctrine.
          B. Delegation to Probation
          Alternatively, we would affirm the judgment of the district court for
   the following reasons. Jacquot argues that the district court erred by
   delegating the option to choose between inpatient and outpatient drug rehab
   treatment to Jacquot’s probation officer. “While probation officers may
   ‘manage aspects of sentences’ and oversee the conditions of supervised
   release, a probation officer may not exercise the ‘core judicial function’ of
   imposing a sentence, ‘including the terms and conditions of supervised
   release.’” United States v. Martinez, 987 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2021)
   (quoting United States v. Barber, 865 F.3d 837, 839 (5th Cir. 2017)).
          In Martinez, we considered a nearly identical condition of release and
   ruled that due to the criminal defendant’s “short ten-month sentence, the
   district court should not have delegated the decision to further restrict a
   defendant’s liberty during the course of treatment while on supervised
   release.” Martinez, 987 F.3d at 436 (5th Cir. 2021). However, Martinez was
   not a plain error case and is thus not dispositive. We will nonetheless assume
   arguendo that Jacquot has met the first three prongs of the plain error review.
   Nonetheless, we conclude that we should not exercise our discretion in his
   favor because of the particular facts here. Jacquot previously requested a
   modification of his conditions of supervised release from outpatient
   treatment to inpatient treatment which the district court agreed to.
   Accordingly, at this sentencing, the district court was merely reinstating that
   which Jacquot had previously requested and agreed to and which he did not

                                          5
Case: 22-10305      Document: 00516820856         Page: 6   Date Filed: 07/14/2023

                                   No. 22-10305

   object to. Indeed, his conduct since demonstrates why he wanted and needed
   the inpatient treatment. Thus, we do not find that any error in this regard
   “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings.” Molina-Martinez 578 U.S. at 194. Thus, in the alternative, we
   affirm the district court.
                                 IV. Conclusion
          Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

                                        6