United States v. Krupalla

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 8, 2023
• Docket: 22-50685
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-50685 Document: 00516639299 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50685 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 8, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Charles Edward Krupalla,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:21-CR-3-1 ______________________________

Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Charles Edward Krupalla pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. He was sentenced to 65 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Krupalla challenges the condition of his supervised release which provides that, if the probation officer determines

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-50685 Document: 00516639299 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2023

No. 22-50685

that Krupalla presents a risk to another person, the probation officer may require Krupalla to notify the person of that risk and may contact the person to confirm that notification occurred. Krupalla contends that this condition constitutes an improper delegation of judicial authority to the probation officer. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022), but he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, asserting that Krupalla’s claim is foreclosed by Mejia-Banegas. We held in Mejia-Banegas that such a risk-notification condition did not impermissibly delegate judicial authority, plainly or otherwise. 32 F.4th at 451-52. The parties are thus correct that the issue is foreclosed, and the Government is correct that summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.