Case: 21-51136 Document: 00516398046 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 18, 2022 No. 21-51136 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Luis Manuel Marquez-Munoz, Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-594-1

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Luis Manuel Marquez-Munoz appeals the 16-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, he challenges a condition of his supervised release providing that, if the probation officer

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-51136 Document: 00516398046 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2022

No. 21-51136

determines that Marquez-Munoz presents a risk to another person, the probation officer may require him to notify the person of that risk and may contact the person to confirm that notification occurred. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance arguing that Marquez-Munoz’s claim is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022).

Marquez-Munoz contends the district court erred in imposing the risk-notification condition because it constitutes an impermissible delegation of judicial authority to the probation officer. Mejia-Banegas rejected this same argument, holding that the district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, by imposing the same condition. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th at 451- 52. The Government is thus correct that summary disposition is appropriate.

See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.