USA v. Escobedo, No. 20-40565 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-40565 Document: 00516095187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-40565 Summary Calendar November 16, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Alfredo Escobedo, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:15-CR-1139-1 Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Alfredo Escobedo, Jr., contests the revocation of his supervised release imposed for three convictions related to his transportation of illegal aliens. He asserts the district court plainly erred by revoking such release based, in part, on a finding that he committed five technical violations of a * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-40565 Document: 00516095187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 No. 20-40565 GPS-monitoring condition that was not made a part of his supervised release but was a condition only of his release on bond, pending the revocation hearing. Escobedo (as he acknowledges) did not raise this issue in district court. Therefore, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Escobedo must show a forfeited plain error (clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes that showing, our court has the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id. Assuming Escobedo has shown a clear-or-obvious error, he has failed to establish that, but for the claimed error, the court would not have revoked his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (modification of conditions or revocation); Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135 (explaining that, for a plain error to affect substantial rights, defendant “must demonstrate that it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings” (citation omitted)). First, in addition to the violations of the GPS-monitoring condition, the court also determined Escobedo: committed an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against his stepmother, a new law violation; disobeyed the condition of his supervised release that he refrain from using drugs; and failed to comply with a mental-health treatment condition. Any of these violations would have justified the decision to revoke Escobedo’s supervised release. See § 3583(e). Further, Escobedo cites no authority to support his contentions that: the court’s finding five technical violations of the GPS monitoring condition unfairly stigmatized him; or this could hypothetically 2 Case: 20-40565 Document: 00516095187 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 No. 20-40565 negatively impact his future ability to receive probation, supervised release, or bond. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
