United States v. Martinez-Corral

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 25-50379
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-50379 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50379 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ December 19, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jaime Guillermo Martinez-Corral,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:25-CR-103-1 ______________________________

Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jaime Guillermo Martinez-Corral appeals the sentence of 14 months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. For the first time on appeal, he challenges the condition of his supervised release providing that if the probation officer determines that he poses a risk to another person, the officer may require him

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50379 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2025

No. 25-50379

to notify that person of the risk. Martinez-Corral contends that the condition improperly delegates judicial authority to the probation officer. He concedes this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022), and the Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time in which to file a brief. In Mejia-Banegas, we held that the same risk-notification condition did not impermissibly delegate judicial authority, plainly or otherwise. 32 F.4th at 451-52. Accordingly, the issue is foreclosed, and 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, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.