United States v. Hall

Opinion

Case: 23-50082 Document: 00516979869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50082 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ November 27, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Devin Edward Hall,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:19-CR-154-1 ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Devin Edward Hall pleaded guilty in 2020 to transporting an adult across state lines for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421. His sentence includes 91-months’ imprisonment and five- years supervised release. Hall, who has not been released on supervision,

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-50082 Document: 00516979869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2023

No. 23-50082

challenges a supervised-release special condition requiring him to “take any and all medications that are prescribed by the treating physician”. “This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Such sua sponte jurisdictional inquiry includes whether an issue is ripe for review. McCall v. Dretke, 390 F.3d 358, 361 (5th Cir. 2004). Whether Hall’s claim is ripe is reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. Magana, 837 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2016). “[T]he ripeness inquiry focuses on whether an injury that has not yet occurred is sufficiently likely to happen to justify judicial intervention.” Pearson v. Holder, 624 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). “A claim is not ripe for review if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” Magana, 837 F.3d at 459 (citation omitted). Hall’s challenge to the condition is not ripe for review because it is “a matter of conjecture” whether he will ever be subjected to prescribed medication. Id. (citation omitted); see also United States v. Carmichael, 343 F.3d 756, 761–62 (5th Cir. 2003) (concluding supervised-release condition not ripe because condition was contingent on future events). If he is ever required to submit to such medication, Hall may petition the district court for a modification of the conditions of his release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) (permitting modification of supervised-release conditions). DISMISSED.