United States v. Conrado Arellano

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40162
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CONRADO DEPAZ ARELLANO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:17-CR-60-1

Before WIENER, SOUTHWICK, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Defendant-Appellant Conrado Depaz Arellano appeals his sentences for
conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute and
illegal reentry following removal. He contends that the district court erred
when it failed to orally pronounce the special conditions of supervised release
included in his written judgment. In a supplemental letter brief, Depaz
Arellano concedes that his case appears analogous to United States v. Diggles,

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 17, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 18-40162 Document: 00515494354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2020

No. 18-40162
2
957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc), and he seeks to preserve this issue for
further appellate review.
Depaz Arellano did not object when the district court orally adopted the
conditions outlined in the presentence report (PSR), which included the three
conditions he now challenges. Consequently, plain error review applies.
Diggles, 957 F.3d at 559-60, 563. Because the district court’s oral adoption of
the conditions in the PSR satisfied the court’s pronouncement obligations to
the extent it was required to do so, Depaz Arellano does “not clear even the
first of the four plain-error hurdles for there was no error at all.” Id. at 560.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case: 18-40162 Document: 00515494354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2020