United States v. Mejia-Estrada

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: May 12, 2025
• Docket: 24-50842
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-50842 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2025

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

FILED No. 24-50842 May 12, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Hector Cristobal Mejia-Estrada,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:23-CR-595-1 ______________________________

Before Graves, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Hector Cristobal Mejia-Estrada was found guilty of illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), and the district court sentenced him to 30 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. For the first time on appeal, Mejia-Estrada challenges a condition of supervised release providing that if his probation officer

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-50842 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2025

No. 24-50842

determines that he poses a risk to another person, the officer may require him to notify that person of the risk. Mejia-Estrada contends that this condition improperly delegates judicial authority to the probation officer. As Mejia-Estrada correctly concedes, this issue is foreclosed by United States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450, 452 (5th Cir. 2022). He raises the issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a merits brief. Because 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 Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.