United States v. Tercero Garcia ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50359 Document: 00516608154 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50359
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ January 12, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Julio Cesar Tercero Garcia,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:21-CR-360-1
______________________________
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Julio Cesar Tercero Garcia pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. He received
a 135-month prison sentence and a five-year term of supervised release.
For the first time on appeal, Tercero Garcia challenges the condition
of his supervised release which provides that, if the probation officer
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50359 Document: 00516608154 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2023
No. 22-50359
determines that Tercero Garcia presents a risk to another person, the
probation officer may require Tercero Garcia to notify the person of that risk
and may contact the person to confirm that notification occurred. Tercero
Garcia contends that this condition constitutes an impermissible delegation
of judicial authority to the probation officer. He concedes that his argument
is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32
F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022), but he raises the issue to preserve it for further
review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary
affirmance, asserting that Tercero Garcia’s claim is foreclosed by Mejia-
Banegas.
In Mejia-Banegas, we held that such a risk-notification condition did
not impermissibly delegate judicial authority, plainly or otherwise. 32 F.4th
at 451-52. The parties are thus correct that the issue is foreclosed, and the
Government is correct that summary affirmance 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