United States v. Edgar Castillo-Robles

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 31, 2019
• Docket: 18-11457
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 18-11457 Document: 00514978532 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 18-11457 May 31, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR JOSUE CASTILLO-ROBLES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-84-1

Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Edgar Josue Castillo-Robles appeals his sentence following his conviction for illegal reentry after removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court imposed an unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and unreasonable supervised release condition requiring him to permit a probation officer to visit him at any time and place and to permit the probation officer to take any contraband in plain

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-11457 Document: 00514978532 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2019

No. 18-11457

view. He further argues that the district court erred by imposing this condition without explanation. Because Castillo-Robles did not object to the imposition of the condition or to the lack of an explanation, we review for plain error. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance arguing that Castillo-Robles’s arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Cabello, 916 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 2019). As Castillo-Robles’s arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Cabello, summary affirmance 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, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.