Case: 19-10885 Document: 00515733852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 4, 2021
No. 19-10885 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Colvis Jerrod Higgins,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-86-1
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Colvis Jerrod Higgins pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm following
conviction of a felony offense based on his sale of a handgun to an undercover
officer during the course of a drug trafficking investigation. The district court
sentenced Higgins to a term of imprisonment of 96 months to be followed by
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-10885 Document: 00515733852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2021
No. 19-10885
a three-year term of supervised release. As a special condition of supervised
release, the district court ordered Higgins to participate in treatment for
substance dependency, to contribute to the cost of that treatment, and to
abstain from the use of alcohol and all other intoxicants during and after
treatment. Higgins now argues that the district court’s imposition of the
special condition constitutes reversible plain error because the district court
failed to set forth reasons justifying its imposition, the treatment and
abstinence requirements are not reasonably related to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, and the nature of the error warrants discretionary relief.
District courts “possess broad discretion to impose special conditions
of supervised release,” subject to the limitations set forth in § 3553(a) and
18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). United States v. Bree, 927 F.3d 856, 859 (5th Cir. 2019)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although they must provide
factual findings to justify the imposition of a given special condition, this
court may affirm in the absence of such findings “where the district court’s
reasoning can be inferred after an examination of the record.” United States
v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 275 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks,
citation, and alteration omitted). Review here is for plain error because
Higgins did not object to the treatment and abstinence special condition after
the district court orally pronounced it. See United States v. Alvarez, 880 F.3d
236, 239 (5th Cir. 2018). To obtain relief, Higgins must show a forfeited error
that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. See id. If he
makes such a showing, this court should exercise its discretion to correct the
error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation
of judicial proceedings. See Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897,
1906 (2018).
Based on the evidence in the record regarding Higgins’ drug use and
criminal history, the district court did not plainly err in imposing both the
treatment and abstinence requirements. See United States v. Hinojosa,
2
Case: 19-10885 Document: 00515733852 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/04/2021
No. 19-10885
956 F.3d 331, 334-35 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d 279,
290 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
3