Case: 17-50709 Document: 00514736577 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ___________________ United States Court of Appeals No. 17-50709 Fifth Circuit FILED Summary Calendar November 27, 2018 ___________________ Lyle W. Cayce UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PETE LUCERO, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:17-CR-30-2 _______________________ Before OWEN, WILLETT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The United States and Pete Lucero ask us to dismiss this appeal because they believe it is moot. It is not. The district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order that purportedly moots the dispute. Nevertheless, because the district court’s original judgment remains in effect and omits limitations on a * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 17-50709 Document: 00514736577 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2018 condition of supervised release that were announced orally at sentencing, we vacate the August 25, 2017, judgment and remand to allow the district court to implement its indicative ruling. I. Pete Lucero pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine with intent to distribute the drugs. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); id. § 846. At sentencing, the district court sentenced Lucero to 210 months in prison followed by 60 months of supervised release. It also imposed special conditions on his supervised release, including a requirement that Lucero submit to searches by a probation officer. The court authorized such searches “only when reasonable suspicion exists that the defendant has violated a condition of supervision and that the area to be searched contains evidence of this violation.” ROA.104. On August 25, 2017, the district court entered its judgment. But it failed to include the limiting language about probation officer searches. Lucero appealed, raising challenges to his sentence. 1 On September 27, 2018—more than a year after Lucero filed a notice of appeal—the Government moved to amend the judgment to correct the variation between the district court’s written judgment and its oral pronouncement at sentencing. United States v. Lucero, No. 7:17-cr-00030-DC-2, ECF No. 179, at 1–2 (W.D. Tex.). And the district court agreed. The very next day it added a sentence to the judgment purporting to clarify that a probation officer may search Lucero only 1 The district court sentenced Lucero on August 17, 2017. That same day, Lucero’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal and a motion to withdraw as counsel. Eight days later, on August 25, 2017, the district court entered its final judgment. By rule, Lucero’s notice of appeal became effective on the date of the final judgment (August 25, 2017), notwithstanding that it was filed eight days earlier. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(2) (“A notice of appeal filed . . . before the entry of the judgment or order . . . is treated as ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals