United States v. Lezama-Ramirez

── United States v. Lezama-Ramirez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 23-30721 Document: 153-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 23-30721 September 5, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Luis Alfredo Lezama-Ramirez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:22-CR-182-1 ______________________________ ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Before Southwick, Oldham, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. No member of the panel nor judge in regular active service of the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc (Fed. R. App. and 5th Cir. R. 35), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. We withdraw our prior opinion, see United States v. Lezama-Ramirez, 155 F.4th 348 (5th Cir. 2025) (per curiam), and substitute the following. Case: 23-30721 Document: 153-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 No. 23-30721 Luis Alfredo Lezama-Ramirez, a previously removed alien, pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court sentenced him to 24 months in prison and one year of supervised release. He challenges various discrepancies between the supervised-release conditions imposed at sentencing and those listed in the district court’s written judgment. We AFFIRM in part and VACATE in part. I After Lezama-Ramirez pleaded guilty, the Probation Office prepared a presentence report (“PSR”) and sent it to his counsel. The PSR included a list of thirteen “Standard Conditions” and two “Special Conditions” of supervised release. At sentencing, Lezama-Ramirez’s counsel confirmed that he had no objections to the PSR. And counsel referred to the PSR several times during the sentencing hearing. Without objection, the district court adopted the PSR. The district court then imposed a one-year term of supervised release and ordered Lezama-Ramirez to comply with various supervised-release conditions. The district court did not read those conditions out loud, however. Rather, as relevant here, the district court ordered Lezama- Ramirez to “comply with all other standard conditions of supervised release” and two special conditions. Then the district court’s written judgment included thirteen standard conditions and two special conditions. The standard and special conditions listed in the written judgment were identical to the conditions disclosed in the PSR. II We first address Lezama-Ramirez’s challenge to Standard Conditions 2–9, Standard Conditions 11–13, and Special Condition 1. These conditions 2 Case: 23-30721 Document: 153-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 No. 23-30721 were listed in the written judgment and the PSR. But the district court did not read them out loud at sentencing. Because Lezama-Ramirez had notice of the supervised-release conditions in the PSR, and bec