UNITED STATES v. CASTILLO ROBLES (2019)

Edgar Josue Castillo-Robles appeals his sentence following his conviction for illegal reentry after removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court imposed an unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and unreasonable supervised release condition requiring him to permit a probation officer to visit him at any time and place and to permit the probation officer to take any contraband in plain view. He further argues that the district court erred by imposing this condition without explanation. Because Castillo-Robles did not object to the imposition of the condition or to the lack of an explanation, we review for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009).

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance arguing that Castillo-Robles’s arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Cabello, 916 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 2019). As Castillo-Robles’s arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Cabello, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.