United States v. Santos ( 2021 )

Case: 19-10683 Document: 00515822184 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-10683 April 14, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jacinto Guzman Santos, Jr.,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:18-CR-113-1
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jacinto Guzman Santos, Jr., was convicted by a jury of possession with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii), and he was sentenced to 293 months
of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Now on appeal, he
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-10683 Document: 00515822184 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
No. 19-10683
challenges the denial of a motion to suppress and the imposition of a
condition of supervised release.
First, Guzman Santos argues that the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of police officers’ entry
into a motel room in which he was staying pursuant to an outstanding arrest
warrant for him. Reviewing the district court’s factual findings for clear error
and legal conclusions de novo, United States v. Daniels, 930 F.3d 393, 400
(5th Cir. 2019), we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress, see Payton v.
New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603 (1980); United States v. Taylor, 482 F.3d 315,
318 (5th Cir. 2007). We do not read Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204(1981), as compelling a different conclusion.
Second, Guzman Santos argues that the district court erred by
imposing, without explanation, a special condition of supervised release
requiring him to participate in a narcotic, drug, or alcohol dependency
program for which he was required to contribute at least $20 per month.
Because Guzman Santos did not object at sentencing, plain error review
applies. See United States v. Alvarez, 880 F.3d 236, 239 (5th Cir. 2018).
Based on evidence in the record regarding Guzman Santos’s current and past
involvement with drugs that allows us to infer the district court’s reasoning,
there was no reversible plain error. See United States v. Hinojosa, 956 F.3d
331, 334-35 (5th Cir. 2020); Alvarez, 880 F.3d at 239; United States v.
Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 275 (5th Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2