USA v. Perez-Espinoza, No. 20-40769 (5th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Defendant pleaded guilty to narcotics possession and at his sentencing hearing, the court stated that if Defendant were to return to this country, he would be required to report to the nearest probation office within 72 hours. A week later the district court entered a written judgment that included an immediate-reporting requirement. Defendant challenged the written judgment’s inclusion of the immediate-reporting requirement.

The Fifth Circuit found no reversible error in the district court’s judgment and affirmed the decision.

The court held that there is no material difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment. The court reasoned that at sentencing the Defendant heard he would have to report to the probation office if he reentered the country, and he said nothing. Therefore, Defendant cannot complain when the judgment later clarified the reporting obligation. The court explained that it has previously asked the district court to amend a written judgment’s immediate-reporting requirement to the orally announced 72-hour-reporting requirement. However, those decisions were non-binding, nonprecedential, and unpublished. Therefore, the court declined to follow them.

Download PDF

Case: 20-40769 Document: 00516289693 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 21, 2022 No. 20-40769 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Manuel Perez-Espinoza, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:18-cr-2048-3 Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge: The question presented is whether the district court violated the defendant’s right to be present at sentencing. The answer is no. We therefore affirm. I. Manuel Perez-Espinoza is a Mexican national who obtained legalresident status in the United States. In 2019, he was arrested for various drug offenses. He then pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to Case: 20-40769 Document: 00516289693 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 No. 20-40769 distribute a controlled substance (methamphetamines) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. At the sentencing hearing, the district court orally announced a sentence of 262 months in prison followed by 5 years of supervised release and a fine of $100. The court also imposed various conditions on PerezEspinoza’s supervised release. Relevant here is the special condition that anticipated the Government’s likely decision to remove Perez-Espinoza. The district court stated: “[I]f [Perez-Espinoza] were to return to this country for any reason, he would be required to report to the nearest U.S. Probation Office within 72 hours.” One week later, the court entered a written judgment. Unlike the oral pronouncement, the written judgment imposed a condition that “[i]f the defendant returns, the defendant shall report to the nearest U.S. Probation Office immediately.” Thereafter, Perez-Espinoza timely appealed, challenging only the written judgment’s inclusion of an immediate-reporting requirement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). II. Perez-Espinoza argues that there’s a conflict between requiring him to report “immediately” and requiring him to report “within 72 hours.” We disagree. We hold that there is no material difference between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment. At sentencing, Perez-Espinoza heard that, as a condition of his supervised release, he would have to report to the Probation Office if he reentered the United States. He said nothing. He therefore cannot be heard to complain when the judgment later clarified his reporting obligation. 2 Case: 20-40769 Document: 00516289693 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 No. 20-40769 It’s true that we’ve at least twice ordered the district court to amend the written judgment’s immediate-reporting requirement to the orally announced 72-hour-reporting requirement. See United States v. GonzalezHernandez, No. 21-40180, 2022 WL 256354, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 26, 2022) (per curiam); United States v. Temetan, 828 F. App’x 203, 206 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). But those opinions are unpublished, nonprecedential, and hence non-binding. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Neither explains how the oral pronouncement and written judgment materially differed. See, e.g., Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (noting we follow non-binding precedent only to the extent it’s “persuasive”). And we therefore decline to follow them. Perez-Espinoza also argues that our review is for abuse of discretion (as opposed to plain error) because he didn’t have an opportunity to object to his immediate-reporting requirement. See United States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2020). As noted above, however, he had an opportunity to object to a materially identical, 72-hour reporting requirement, and he failed to do so. And in any event, it does not matter because Perez-Espinoza loses under any standard of review. * * * For these reasons, we see no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. 3

Primary Holding

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that the district court did not violate Defendant's right to be present at sentencing. The court concluded that there was no material difference between the district court's oral pronouncement of Defendant's sentence and the written judgment.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.