United States v. Hernandez ( 2023 )

Case: 23-50028 Document: 00516903118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-50028
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ September 21, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Sonia Renee Hernandez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-472-1
______________________________
Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Sonia Renee Hernandez, federal prisoner # 76187-380, pleaded guilty
to transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)(1). Hernandez’s supervised release commenced
on February 28, 2020. The probation officer alleged that Hernandez violated
the terms of her release by committing another crime, driving while
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50028 Document: 00516903118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 23-50028
intoxicated with a child passenger. The district court found that there was
ample evidence that Hernandez violated the terms of her supervised release,
revoked her supervised release, and sentenced her to 18 months in prison.
Hernandez first argues that the district court violated her due process
right to confront the witnesses against her, insofar as it allowed the probation
officer to give hearsay testimony about the contents of the arresting police
officer’s report without a showing of good cause. “Defendants in supervised
release revocation proceedings have a qualified right to confront witnesses.”
United States v. Jimison, 825 F.3d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 2016). While Hernandez
argues that she preserved error by the arguments made after the close of
evidence, closing argument that is general and far removed from the relevant
testimony cannot be construed as a relevant objection. See United States v.
McDowell, 973 F.3d 362, 366 (5th Cir. 2020).
Unpreserved errors are subject to plain error review. Holguin-
Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 764 (2020). Under the plain error
standard, Hernandez must show that the district court committed a clear and
obvious error that affected her substantial rights, that is, that it affected the
outcome of the proceedings. See McDowell, 973 F.3d at 365-66; Puckett v.
United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). She has not shown a clear or obvious
error. See McDowell, 973 F.3d at 366 (“There is no authority requiring a
specific good-cause finding in the absence of an objection.”).
Hernandez also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support
the district court’s decision to revoke her supervised release. In reviewing
challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in revocation hearings, we “view
the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the
evidence in a light most favorable to the government.” United States v.
Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted); see United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 835-36 (5th Cir.
2
Case: 23-50028 Document: 00516903118 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 23-50028
1996) (holding that regardless of acquittal by a jury, revocation court had
sufficient evidence to support a finding of a violation). The probation
officer’s testimony regarding the police officer’s arrest report was
corroborated by Hernandez’s testimony as to the circumstances of her arrest.
When viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, this evidence
was sufficient to support the district court’s conclusion that there was ample
evidence to show that Hernandez had committed the criminal offense of
driving while intoxicated with a child passenger and had violated the terms of
her supervised release.
AFFIRMED.
3