USA v. Juan Rodriguez, No. 20-50359 (5th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-50359 Document: 00515656819 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 1, 2020 No. 20-50359 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Juan Ramon Rodriguez, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:19-CR-257-1 Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Juan Ramon Rodriguez pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 87 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Now, for the first time on appeal, he challenges a condition of supervised release included in his written judgment. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-50359 Document: 00515656819 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2020 No. 20-50359 We review for plain error because Rodriguez had an opportunity to object and failed to do so when the district court orally adopted both the presentence report (PSR), which contained the challenged condition, and a court-wide standing order that also listed the challenged condition. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 560-61 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc), cert. denied, 2020 WL 6551832 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2020) (No. 20-5836); United States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348, 353-54 (5th Cir. 2020). Based on the record, the district court’s oral adoption of both the PSR and the standing order satisfied the requirement that the court orally pronounce the conditions of supervised release. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 560; Grogan, 977 F.3d at 353–54. We are therefore unpersuaded that Rodriguez has demonstrated any reversible plain error with respect to the challenged condition. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 560; Grogan, 977 F.3d at 353–54. 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.