Case: 23-50065 Document: 00516815420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50065 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 10, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Adrian De La Torre, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:22-CR-640-1 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Adrian De La Torre pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the harboring of aliens and conspiracy to harbor aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. The district court sentenced him to 33 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-50065 Document: 00516815420 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2023

No. 23-50065

For the first time on appeal, De La Torre challenges the condition of his supervised release which provides that, if the probation officer determines that De La Torre presents a risk to another person, the probation officer may require De La Torre to notify the person of that risk and may contact the person to confirm that notification occurred. De La Torre contends that this condition constitutes an improper delegation of judicial authority to the probation officer. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022), but he raises the issue to preserve it for further review.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, asserting that De La Torre’s claim is foreclosed by Mejia-Banegas. In the alternative, the Government requests an extension of time to file its brief.

We held in Mejia-Banegas that such a risk-notification condition did not impermissibly delegate judicial authority, plainly or otherwise. 32 F.4th at 451-52. The parties are thus correct that the issue is foreclosed, and the Government is correct that summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.