United States v. Jurado , 214 F. App'x 402 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50464
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESUS JURADO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:06-CR-24
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesus Jurado appeals from the sentence imposed following
revocation of his term of supervised release. For the first time
on appeal, Jurado contends that the district court abused its
discretion by imposing a condition that prohibits him from
consuming alcohol during his new term of supervised release.
Jurado’s contention is reviewable only for plain error
because he failed to raise it in the district court. See United
States v. Magwood, 445 F.3d 826, 828 (5th Cir. 2006). To
establish plain error, the appellant must show that there is
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 06-50464
-2-
error, that it is “clear” or “obvious,” and that it affects both
his substantial rights and the integrity of the proceedings.
United States v. Thompson, 454 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir. 2006),
cert. denied, 127 U.S. 602 (2006).
Jurado has not made such a showing. Although neither the
violations for which his term of supervised release was revoked
nor his underlying criminal offense involved alcohol, the record
reflects that on at least two prior occasions Jurado has been
arrested or charged with driving under the influence of alcohol,
and Jurado has admitted that he was addicted to marijuana and
methamphetamine. Given these circumstances, Jurado has not
established that the district court plainly erred in implicitly
concluding that the no-alcohol condition was “reasonably related”
to factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). See United States
v. Ferguson, 369 F.3d 847, 852 (5th Cir. 2004). Several sister
circuits have upheld conditions prohibiting the consumption of
alcohol in similar circumstances. See, e.g, United States v.
Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 996 (9th Cir. 2006); Untied States
v. McKissic, 428 F.3d 719, 722-24 (7th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
126 S. Ct. 1590 (2006); United States v. Wesley, 81 F.3d 482, 484
(4th Cir. 1996); United States v. Thurlow, 44 F.3d 46, 47 (1st
Cir. 1995).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.