United States v. Carrillo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 31, 2025
• Docket: 24-50037
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-50037 Document: 71-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50037 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 31, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Miguel Antonio Carrillo,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:09-CR-249-1 ______________________________

Before Smith, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Miguel Antonio Carrillo appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release after he failed to complete a substance abuse treatment program successfully. The district court sentenced him to 14 months of imprisonment and two more years of supervised release. The

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-50037 Document: 71-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2025

No. 24-50037

written judgment provides that, as a condition of his supervised release, Carrillo shall participate in a substance abuse treatment program. Carrillo contends that the substance abuse treatment condition in the written judgment conflicts with the district court’s oral pronouncement. We review for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 15 F.4th 1179, 1181 (5th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, Carrillo “must show an obvious error that impacted his substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348, 353 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Given the court’s clear intent to reimpose a substance abuse treatment condition, there is at most an ambiguity that is resolved by the record. See United States v. Porter, 43 F.4th 467, 473 (5th Cir. 2022). Further, given the facts surrounding the revocation and the previously-imposed treatment condition, Carrillo has not shown that if there were any error, it affected his substantial rights. See id. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.