United States v. Contreras-Lopez

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 6, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-20224
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
RUBEN CONTRERAS-LOPEZ, also known as Ruben Gonzalez,
also known as Able Gonzalez, also known as Able
Ramirez-DeLaToire, also known as Able Ramirez-
Gonzalez, also known as Able Ramirez,
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CR-255-1
--------------------
Before KING, DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In August 1999 Ruben Contreras-Lopez (“Contreras”) was
convicted upon pleading guilty to illegal reentry after
deportation and was sentenced to a prison term and three years of
supervised release. The district court imposed as conditions of
supervised release that Contreras not commit another federal,
state, or local crime and that he not illegally reenter the
United States. The district court revoked Contreras’s supervised
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 05-20224
-2-
release in 2004 and imposed a further term of imprisonment
because Contreras was again found in the United State illegally
during his supervised release term.
Contreras appeals from the revocation, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion because he did not receive
the statutory written notice of the conditions of supervised
release required by 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(f) and 3603(1). He argues
further that the error does not qualify as harmless error because
he lacked actual notice of the conditions. The Government argues
that we should apply plain error review because Contreras did not
properly raise his argument at the revocation hearing in the
district court.
The record shows that the district court correctly informed
Contreras of the conditions of his supervised release, and
Contreras indicated that he understood. Therefore, Contreras had
actual notice. The district court did not commit error, plain or
otherwise, by revoking Contreras’s supervised release. See
United States v. Arbizu, 431 F.3d 469, 470 (5th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.