United States v. Matute-Disqua

Case: 25-50478 Document: 66-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50478 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 23, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Roni Jardel Matute-Disqua, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:24-CR-2858-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Roni Jardel Matute-Disqua appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. He argues that the district court orally pronounced two conflicting supervised release reporting conditions. We disagree.

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

Case: 25-50478 Document: 66-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2026

No. 25-50478

The sentence imposed “should reveal with fair certainty the intent of the court and exclude any serious misapprehensions by those who must execute them.” United States v. Willis, 76 F.4th 467, 478 (5th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A sentence violates this principle “when it is ambiguous with respect to the time and manner in which it is to be served or is internally self-contradictory.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, the disputed conditions are not necessarily self-contradictory.

The two conditions can be read as providing that, were Matute-Disqua not surrendered to immigration officials, then he was to report to the probation office in the district where he was released, and were he to be surrendered to immigration officials and then released, then he was to report to the nearest probation office. In other words, he is directed to report to one probation office if he is surrendered to immigration officials and another if he is not.

Furthermore, Matute-Disqua fails, on plain error review, to establish clear or obvious error because he has not “show[n] error in the straightforward applications of existing cases.” United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573 (5th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

AFFIRMED.