United States v. Alejandro Figueroa-Munoz, 592 F. App'x 336

Figueroa pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation and to passport misuse.
At sentencing the district court imposed supervised release with a condition of intermittent confinement for non-reporting supervised release; Figueroa did not object at sentencing.
On appeal Figueroa argued for the first time that imposing intermittent confinement as a non-reporting supervised-release condition was plain error.
The Government sought summary affirmance, citing a recent unpublished Fifth Circuit decision (Arciniega‑Rodriguez) and alternatively requested more time to brief the appeal.
The panel reviewed under the plain‑error standard and considered whether any error was clear, affected substantial rights, or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings.
The court concluded any concern that the Bureau of Prisons might immediately impose intermittent confinement was speculative, noted Figueroa faces removal proceedings, and affirmed the district court’s judgment; government motions were denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imposing intermittent confinement as a condition of non‑reporting supervised release was plain error	The written judgment improperly allowed intermittent confinement and the error was plain	The condition is permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(10); Arciniega‑Rodriguez forecloses relief	No plain error; judgment affirmed

United States v. Bishop, 603 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2010) (explains preservation and plain‑error review standards)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (sets the three‑part plain‑error test and discretionary correction standard)
Holy Land Found. For Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 445 F.3d 771 (5th Cir. 2006) (standards for deciding suitability of summary affirmance)