United States v. Fuentes Munoz
This text of United States v. Fuentes Munoz (United States v. Fuentes Munoz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 25-20031 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2025
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED September 12, 2025 No. 25-20031 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Yosniel Fuentes Munoz,
Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CR-175-1 ______________________________
Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Appealing the sentence imposed after revocation of his term of super- vised release, Yosniel Fuentes Munoz maintains that the written revocation judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement of sentence. In particular, Fuentes Munoz reasons as follows: An immigration condition in the judg- ment conflicts with the district court’s oral pronouncement of sentence; the condition should be vacated; and the case should be remanded for reforma- _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-20031 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2025
No. 25-20031
tion of the judgment. Because Fuentes Munoz had no opportunity to object, we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Martinez, 987 F.3d 432, 434–35 (5th Cir. 2021). The purported conflict is, at best, an ambiguity “that can be resolved by looking to [the] entire record to determine the sentencing court’s intent in imposing the condition.” United States v. Pelayo-Zamarripa, 81 F.4th 456, 460 (5th Cir. 2023). The record indicates that, in imposing the condition, the court intended to ensure that Fuentes Munoz “complied with the rele- vant immigration laws.” Id. Accordingly, we discern no abuse of the court’s discretion. See id. at 459–60; Martinez, 987 F.3d at 434–35. AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Fuentes Munoz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fuentes-munoz-ca5-2025.