United States v. Hall ( 2023 )

Case: 23-50082 Document: 00516979869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-50082
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 27, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Devin Edward Hall,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CR-154-1
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Devin Edward Hall pleaded guilty in 2020 to transporting an adult
across state lines for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2421. His sentence includes 91-months’ imprisonment and five-
years supervised release. Hall, who has not been released on supervision,
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50082 Document: 00516979869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
No. 23-50082
challenges a supervised-release special condition requiring him to “take any
and all medications that are prescribed by the treating physician”.
“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own
motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).
Such sua sponte jurisdictional inquiry includes whether an issue is ripe for
review. McCall v. Dretke, 390 F.3d 358, 361 (5th Cir. 2004). Whether Hall’s
claim is ripe is reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. Magana, 837 F.3d 457,
459 (5th Cir. 2016).
“[T]he ripeness inquiry focuses on whether an injury that has not yet
occurred is sufficiently likely to happen to justify judicial intervention.”
Pearson v. Holder, 624 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original)
(citation omitted). “A claim is not ripe for review if it rests upon contingent
future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at
all.” Magana, 837 F.3d at 459 (citation omitted).
Hall’s challenge to the condition is not ripe for review because it is “a
matter of conjecture” whether he will ever be subjected to prescribed
medication. Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Carmichael, 343
F.3d 756, 761–62 (5th Cir. 2003) (concluding supervised-release condition
not ripe because condition was contingent on future events). If he is ever
required to submit to such medication, Hall may petition the district court
for a modification of the conditions of his release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2)
(permitting modification of supervised-release conditions).
DISMISSED.
2