Case: 21-51092 Document: 00516421761 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/05/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
No. 21-51092 Fifth Circuit
consolidated with FILED
No. 21-51117 August 5, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Miguel Angel Amador-Guardado,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-569
USDC No. 4:21-CR-747
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Miguel Angel Amador-Guardado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the district court sentenced him to sixteen
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-51092 Document: 00516421761 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/05/2022
No. 21-51092
c/w No. 21-51117
months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Amador-
Guardado’s sole challenge on appeal argues the district court plainly erred by
imposing a condition of supervised release that impermissibly delegates
judicial authority.1 Critically, however, the United States has filed an
unopposed motion for summary affirmance that suggests this argument is
foreclosed by United States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450 (5th Cir. 2022).
The United States is correct. Mejia-Banegas rejected the exact
argument urged by Amador-Guardado. Id. at 451–52. In no uncertain terms,
we stated that “[t]he risk-notification condition does not impermissibly
delegate the court’s judicial authority to the probation officer.” Id. at 452.
Our holding in Mejia-Banegas thus carries equal force here: “the district court
did not err, much less plainly so, by imposing the risk-notification
condition.” Id.
Because summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp.,
Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the United States’ motion
for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the United States’ alternative
motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the district
court’s judgments2 are AFFIRMED.
1
Specifically, the challenged condition (also known as “Standard Condition 12”)
allows the probation officer to determine whether Amador-Guardado poses a risk to
another person and, if so, require notification to that person. See generally U.S. Sent’g
Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3(c)(12).
2
The consolidated appeal is from an order revoking another term of supervised
release and imposing a consecutive term of imprisonment. But Amador-Guardado has not
briefed (and therefore abandoned) any challenge to this judgment. See, e.g., Yohey v. Collins,
985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also, e.g., Clarkson v. Vannoy, No. 16-31098, 2017
WL 6947729, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2017). No further discussion of this issue is therefore
merited.
2