United States v. Cortez

Case: 20-30601 Document: 00515841073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 28, 2021
No. 20-30601 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
David Cortez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 1:18-CR-296-1
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
David Cortez pled guilty to murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111,
and was sentenced to 350 months in prison followed by five years of
supervised release. Cortez asserts that the district court abused its discretion
when it imposed a special condition of his supervised release that makes him
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-30601 Document: 00515841073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2021
No. 20-30601
“subject to financial disclosure throughout the period of supervised release,”
specifically requiring that he “report all household income to U.S. Probation
as requested” along with “all requested financial documentation.” He
contends that this condition is not reasonably related to his offense because
his offense did not involve money, and that the condition is unwarranted
because he was not ordered to pay a fine or restitution, only a $100 special
assessment. The Government asserts that Cortez’s argument is not ripe for
review.
The question of whether a claim is ripe has jurisdictional implications
and receives de novo review. United States v. Magana, 837 F.3d 457, 459 (5th
Cir. 2016). The record reflects that Cortez is not a citizen of the United
States, and he agreed in his plea agreement to “immediate deportation and
removal” after his term of imprisonment is complete. As a result, whether
he will remain in the United States free of custody long enough to trigger the
challenged special supervised release condition is, at best, a matter of
conjecture. See id. at 459. His challenge to the condition is thus not ripe, and
we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider Cortez’s appeal.
The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
2