USA v. Puga, No. 22-50957 (5th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-50957 Document: 104-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50957 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED March 28, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Fernando Angel Puga, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:19-CR-1359-1 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Defendant-Appellant Fernando Angel Puga was convicted by a jury of (1) kidnapping, (2) carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury, and (3) transportation of a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce. He was sentenced to a total of 372 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. Puga contends that the district court erred in imposing a standard supervised _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-50957 Document: 104-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2024 No. 22-50957 release condition that impermissibly delegates to the probation officer the authority to require him to notify people of any risk he may pose to them. However, Puga concedes that the issue is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See United States v. Mejia-Banegas, 32 F.4th 450, 452 (5th Cir. 2022). The Government moves for summary affirmance for that reason. Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” summary affirmance is proper. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Although the written judgment states that Puga was convicted by a jury on counts one, two, and three—and identifies the offenses charged in counts one and two—it does not identify the offense charged in count three. We therefore remand the case for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to reflect that Puga was convicted of transportation of a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312, as charged in count three of the indictment. See United States v. Cooper, 979 F.3d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Mackay, 757 F.3d 195, 199–200 (5th Cir. 2014). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED as moot. We REMAND for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment under Rule 36 to reflect that Puga was convicted of transportation of a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce as charged in count three of the indictment. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
