Court Opinion

ID: 9398731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 00:00:34.08592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:36.100255
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20539        Document: 00516770397             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/31/2023

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

                                      No. 22-20539                          FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                    May 31, 2023
                                    ____________                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Alfredo Reybollar-Sotomayor,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:22-CR-206-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Alfredo Reybollar-Sotomayor appeals his sentence for illegal reentry.
   He argues that the district court erred by imposing the conditions of
   supervised release related to substance abuse because there was no evidence
   that he actually uses controlled substances, much less abuses them.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20539      Document: 00516770397           Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/31/2023

                                     No. 22-20539

          Although Reybollar-Sotomayor asserts that our review is for abuse of
   discretion, defense counsel’s arguments in support of a downward departure
   at sentencing would not have put the district court on notice that he was
   challenging the conditions of supervised release related to substance abuse.
   See United States v. Neal, 578 F. 3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, our
   review is for plain error. See United States v. Dean, 940 F.3d 888, 890 (5th
   Cir. 2019).
          To establish plain error, Reybollar-Sotomayor must show an error that
   was clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v.
   United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this
   court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the
   fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
          Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the district court
   erred and that the error was clear or obvious, Reybollar-Sotomayor has not
   attempted to show that the error affects his substantial rights or that it
   warrants the exercise of our discretion. See United States v. Andaverde-
   Tinoco, 741 F.3d 509, 523 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Cacino-Trinidad,
   710 F.3d 601, 606 (5th Cir. 2013).
          AFFIRMED.

                                               2