United States v. Victor Salas ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Case: 18-20741        Document: 00515559306             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/10/2020
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                                United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    September 10, 2020
    No. 18-20741
    Summary Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff—Appellee,
    versus
    Victor Delacruz Salas, also known as Jose Soto-Jimenez,
    Defendant—Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:18-CR-325-l
    Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Defendant-Appellant Victor Delacruz Salas appeals his sentence
    following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry after deportation in
    violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that there is an impermissible conflict
    between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment,
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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    not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 18-20741     Document: 00515559306          Page: 2    Date Filed: 09/10/2020
    No. 18-20741
    which included a surrender condition as a special condition of supervised
    release.
    Salas did not have a meaningful opportunity to object in the district
    court. See United States v. Diggles, 
    957 F.3d 551
    , 559-63 (5th Cir. 2020) (en
    banc). Consequently, review is for an abuse of discretion. See United States
    v. Rivas-Estrada, 
    906 F.3d 346
    , 348-50 (5th Cir. 2018).
    The record in this case reflects that the district court intended for
    Salas to be deported following his prison term. See United States v. Vasquez-
    Puente, 
    922 F.3d 700
    , 703-05 (5th Cir. 2019). The surrender condition was
    consistent with this intent and did not “broaden[] the restrictions or
    requirements of supervised release from the oral pronouncement.”
    Id. at 705
       (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). Consequently,
    the district court did not abuse its discretion by including the surrender
    condition in the written judgment. See
    id. The judgment of
    the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-20741

Filed Date: 9/10/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/10/2020