United States v. Gutierrez-Martinez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 25-50402
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-50402 Document: 52-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED December 11, 2025 No. 25-50402 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Luis Alejandro Gutierrez-Martinez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:24-CR-220-1 ______________________________

Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Luis Alejandro Gutierrez-Martinez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release. On appeal, he raises two issues. First, he asks us to remand so the district court can correct a clerical error in its written judgment. Second, he challenges a supervised-release condition authorizing the probation officer to

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50402 Document: 52-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2025

No. 25-50402

require him to notify others of any risk he may pose, arguing that it impermissibly delegates the court’s sentencing authority. The written judgment states that Gutierrez-Martinez pleaded guilty to Count 1 of the information. But the record is clear that he pleaded guilty to Count 1 of the indictment. (He was initially charged by information but later indicted. The information was subsequently dismissed on the Government’s motion.) Both parties agree this is a clerical error correctable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We agree and will remand for that limited purpose. That leaves Gutierrez-Martinez’s challenge to the risk-notification condition. The Government seeks summary affirmance, contending that our decision in United States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam), forecloses that argument. “Summary affirmance is appropriate if ‘the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.’” United States v. Arambula, 950 F.3d 909, 909 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (quoting Groendyke Transp. Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)). Because Gutierrez-Martinez forthrightly concedes that Mejia-Banegas forecloses his argument, summary affirmance is warranted. * * * The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the written judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. In all other respects, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.