U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2022

United States v. Amador-Guardado

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided August 5, 2022

Opinion

Case: 21-51092 Document: 00516421761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals No. 21-51092 Fifth Circuit consolidated with FILED No. 21-51117 August 5, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Miguel Angel Amador-Guardado,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-569

USDC No. 4:21-CR-747

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Miguel Angel Amador-Guardado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the district court sentenced him to sixteen Case: 21-51092 Document: 00516421761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2022

No. 21-51092 c/w No. 21-51117 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Amador- Guardado’s sole challenge on appeal argues the district court plainly erred by imposing a condition of supervised release that impermissibly delegates judicial authority.1 Critically, however, the United States has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance that suggests this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022). The United States is correct. Mejia-Banegas rejected the exact argument urged by Amador-Guardado. Id. at 451–52. In no uncertain terms, we stated that “[t]he risk-notification condition does not impermissibly delegate the court’s judicial authority to the probation officer.” Id. at 452. Our holding in Mejia-Banegas thus carries equal force here: “the district court did not err, much less plainly so, by imposing the risk-notification condition.” Id.

Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the United States’ motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the United States’ alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgments2 are AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 1 Specifically, the challenged condition (also known as “Standard Condition 12”) allows the probation officer to determine whether Amador-Guardado poses a risk to another person and, if so, require notification to that person. See generally U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3(c)(12). 2 The consolidated appeal is from an order revoking another term of supervised release and imposing a consecutive term of imprisonment. But Amador-Guardado has not briefed (and therefore abandoned) any challenge to this judgment. See, e.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also, e.g., Clarkson v. Vannoy, No. 16-31098, 2017 WL 6947729, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2017). No further discussion of this issue is therefore merited.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.