United States v. John Cabello
916 F.3d 543
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- John Martin Cabello appealed a standard supervised-release condition requiring probation officers to visit him anytime and to confiscate contraband in plain view.
- Cabello argued the visitation condition is substantively unreasonable and that the district court must explain reasons when imposing standard conditions.
- He did not object below, so the Fifth Circuit reviewed only for plain error.
- The panel noted the court had not previously decided whether standard visitation conditions are constitutional or whether courts must explain standard conditions.
- Because the issue was unsettled in this circuit, Cabello could not show plain error, and the panel affirmed the supervised-release condition.
- Two concurrences: Higginbotham (full concur) warned against requiring rote oral explanations of every standard condition; Elrod (separate concur) argued sentencing courts should generally provide brief reasons for imposing discretionary standard conditions to comply with §§ 3553(c) and 3583(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a standard supervised-release visitation condition is substantively unreasonable or unconstitutional | Cabello: condition is substantively unreasonable and court must explain reasons for imposing it | Government: condition is a standard discretionary condition; no prior circuit rule requires extra explanation; routine imposition is permissible | Panel: No plain error shown; affirmed the condition because circuit had not previously resolved the issue |
| Whether failure to object below permits plain-error reversal when the circuit has not addressed the issue before | Cabello: asks reversal despite no objection | Government: plain-error standard bars relief when issue is unsettled in circuit | Held: Court applied plain-error framework and declined to find error because the issue was not clearly established |
| Whether sentencing courts must explain reasons for imposing Guidelines’ "standard" conditions | Cabello: argued explanation required | Government: argued no such requirement; standard conditions are routine | Held: Panel did not decide definitively; concurring opinions split—Elrod favors requiring brief reasons; Higginbotham cautions against mandatory oral explanations |
| Proper appellate standard for reviewing discretionary supervised-release conditions | Cabello: asked for review of substantive reasonableness | Government: deferential review; plain-error where not preserved | Held: When unpreserved, plain-error applies; discretionary conditions reviewed for reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (background on supervised release replacing parole)
- United States v. Ponce-Flores, 900 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2018) (plain-error review precedent cited)
- United States v. Oti, 872 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) (plain-error framework)
- United States v. Alvarez, 880 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2018) (courts may infer reasoning from record for special conditions)
- United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2015) (vacatur required if record doesn’t support special condition)
- United States v. Salazar, 743 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014) (discussing findings required for special conditions)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (requires findings for all discretionary conditions, including Guidelines’ standard conditions)
- United States v. Munoz, 812 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 2016) (treats certain standard conditions as implicit and not requiring separate explanation)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing explanation requirement for meaningful appellate review)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (permissibility of brief, reasoned explanations at sentencing)