USA v. Castro-Diaz, No. 22-50431 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-50431 Document: 00516531580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50431 Summary Calendar FILED November 2, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Ricardo Alejandro Castro-Diaz, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:22-CR-50-1 Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Defendant-Appellant Ricardo Alejandro Castro-Diaz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced him to 48 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, he challenges the condition of his supervised release * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 22-50431 Document: 00516531580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2022 No. 22-50431 which provides that, if the probation officer determines that Castro-Diaz presents a risk to another person, the probation officer may require CastroDiaz to notify the person of that risk and may contact the person to confirm that notification occurred. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, asserting that Castro-Diaz’s claim is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022). Castro-Diaz contends that the district court erred in imposing the risk-notification condition because it constitutes an impermissible delegation of judicial authority to the probation officer. In Mejia-Banegas, we rejected this same argument, holding that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, by imposing the same condition. 32 F.4th at 451-52. The Government is thus correct that summary disposition 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, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
