United States v. Hugo Arciniega-Rodriguez, 581 F. App'x 419

Arciniega-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to being a previously deported alien found in the United States without authorization, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
The district court imposed a supervised-release condition allowing intermittent confinement (nights/weekends/intervals) for up to the lesser of one year or the term of imprisonment.
Arciniega appeals for the first time, challenging the district court’s use of intermittent confinement as a self‑executing non-reporting condition.
The panel reviews for plain error and considers whether there was a clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), such intermittent confinement may be imposed only for a violation of a supervised-release condition, during the first year, and only when facilities are available.
The court ultimately affirms, finding no clear error or impact on substantial rights, and noting the immigration detainer and removal proceedings mitigate potential consequences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court plainly erred in imposing intermittent confinement	Arciniega argues the judgment contains a clear error	The district court acted within statutory limits for first-year conditional confinement	No plain error; affirmed

United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review framework applied in this context)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (clear-error standard for legal errors in sentencing)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for plain-error correction)
Hernandez-De Aza, 536 F. App’x 404 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam; related plain-error considerations)
United States v. Hatton, 539 F. App’x 639 (5th Cir. 2013) (denial of challenge to supervised-release condition deemed too speculative)