United States v. Paz-Mejia
20-50926
| 5th Cir. | Apr 20, 2022Background
- Oscar Omar Paz-Mejia pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal and was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
- The written judgment listed nine mandatory conditions and 17 standard (discretionary) conditions of supervised release.
- At sentencing the court adopted the PSR but did not orally announce standard conditions 1–16 or reference the district’s standing order that lists those conditions.
- The court did orally state a condition that Paz-Mejia "not come back to this country illegally."
- Paz-Mejia appealed, arguing the district court failed to orally pronounce the discretionary conditions; the Government largely agreed.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated in part and remanded to amend the written judgment by excising the unpronounced standard conditions 1–16, but upheld the single reentry condition that was orally announced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discretionary (standard) supervised-release conditions must be orally pronounced to be enforceable | Gov't conceded most of the standard conditions were not pronounced and thus invalid | Paz-Mejia argued unpronounced conditions in the written judgment conflict with the oral sentence and must be excised | The court held unpronounced discretionary conditions must be pronounced; absent pronouncement they conflict with the oral sentence and must be removed |
| Whether a standing order or other document suffices as oral pronouncement without explicit reference at sentencing | Gov't relied on district standing order generally but acknowledged lack of explicit adoption for most conditions | Paz-Mejia argued mere existence of a standing order is insufficient without adoption or reference at sentencing | The court reiterated a document can be adopted, but mere existence is insufficient; because the court did not adopt or reference the standing order for conditions 1–16, they must be excised |
| Standard of review for unpronounced conditions and for a condition that was mentioned | Gov't did not contest review standards; court applied precedent | Paz-Mejia argued error in imposition | The court reviewed unpronounced conditions for abuse of discretion and reviewed the reentry condition for plain error because Paz-Mejia had opportunity to object |
| Whether the orally stated reentry prohibition sufficed to support the written judgment’s matching condition | Gov't argued the court’s statements conveyed the condition | Paz-Mejia implicitly contested imposition of unwarned conditions | The court held the court’s statements sufficiently announced the prohibition on illegal reentry; no plain error was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (oral pronouncement controls written judgment; court must pronounce supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2003) (oral sentence controls when written judgment conflicts; written judgment must be amended)
- United States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2020) (review standards for unpronounced conditions; abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Fields, 977 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2020) (conflicting written conditions must be deleted to conform to oral sentence)
- United States v. Martinez, 15 F.4th 1179 (5th Cir. 2021) (a shorthand reference to a standing order or document can constitute adoption when adequately referenced)
Result: Vacated in part and remanded for the district court to amend the written judgment by excising standard conditions 1–16; the reentry prohibition condition remains.