United States v. Mendoza-Velasquez, No. 16-40194 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant challenged the district court's judgment requiring him, as a special condition of supervised release, to participate in a mental health program and to incur costs associated with such program, based on ability to pay. Assuming arguendo that defendant has satisfied the first three prongs of the plain error test, the court concluded that defendant has not shown that the district court committed reversible plain error because he has not satisfied the stringent fourth prong of the plain error test by demonstrating that any error resulted in a serious prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
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.