Court Opinion

ID: 9434881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 00:00:33.907065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:12:56.061107
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51014         Document: 00516843770             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/02/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-51014
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                 August 2, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   John Paul Lopez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:21-CR-107-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          John Paul Lopez pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent
   to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a
   detectable amount of methamphetamine (count one) and one count of
   possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (count two).
   See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He
   was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 188 months of imprisonment on
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51014       Document: 00516843770               Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                          No. 22-51014

   count one and 60 months of imprisonment on count two. The district court
   imposed a four-year term of supervised release on count one, to run
   concurrently with a three-year term of supervised release on count two.
          Lopez challenges the condition of his supervised release that provides
   that, if the probation officer determines that Lopez presents a risk to another
   person, the probation officer may require Lopez to notify the person of that
   risk and may contact the person to confirm that notification occurred. While
   Lopez challenged this condition of supervised release at sentencing, he
   challenged it as unconstitutionally vague. He now argues that this condition
   constitutes an improper delegation of judicial authority to the probation
   officer. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our decision in United
   States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450, 452 (5th Cir. 2022), but he raises the
   issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an
   unopposed motion for summary affirmance, asserting that Lopez’s claim is
   foreclosed by Mejia-Banegas. In the alternative, the Government requests an
   extension of time to file its brief.
          We held in Mejia-Banegas that such a risk-notification condition did
   not impermissibly delegate judicial authority, plainly or otherwise. 32 F.4th
   at 451-52. The parties are thus correct that the issue is foreclosed, and the
   Government is correct that summary affirmance is appropriate.                  See
   Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The
   Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the district
   court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and the Government’s alternative
   motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

                                               2