United States v. Vacchino

── United States v. Vacchino ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: Direct Criminal Case: 25-50194 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED May 7, 2026 No. 25-50194 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jayden Douglas Richard Vacchino, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:23-CR-565-1 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Patrick E. Higginbotham, Circuit Judge: Jayden Douglas Richard Vacchino appeals his criminal sentence, citing discrepancies between the sentencing hearing and the written judgment. We VACATE the judgment in part, AFFIRM it in part, and REMAND for further proceedings. I. One night in October 2023, a sixteen-year-old girl went missing in Floresville, Texas. Police discovered she exchanged messages with Vacchino, whom she met online, shortly before she disappeared. Those Case: 25-50194 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 No. 25-50194 messages detailed Vacchino’s plan to bring the victim from Texas to Louisiana for sex. Further investigation proved Vacchino followed through. His phone had connected to a tower by the victim’s house the night she went missing. Security camera footage showed his car in the area. And two days later, Vacchino’s phone pinged again in Shreveport, where he was found with the victim and arrested. Vacchino pleaded guilty to one count of transporting a minor interstate with intent to engage in criminal sexual conduct. 1 At sentencing, the district court confirmed Vacchino and his counsel understood the presentence report, though it did not explicitly adopt that report at any point in the hearing. The court then orally sentenced Vacchino to 260 months’ incarceration, 15 years of supervised release, a $100 special assessment, and a fine of $25,000. At defense counsel’s request, the court specifically recommended “sex counseling treatment” while Vacchino was incarcerated. The court stated it would impose “[t]he standard conditions” of supervised release “plus the sex offender conditions.” The written judgment, however, went further. It included “the mandatory, standard, and if applicable, the special conditions” of supervised release, plus several enumerated special conditions copied from the presentence report. The written judgment did not include the recommendation for sex counseling treatment. Vacchino challenges these discrepancies on appeal. He contends some supervised release conditions in the written judgment were not properly pronounced at his sentencing hearing. He also argues the omission of the _____________________ 1 See 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). 2  Case: 25-50194 Document: 63-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 No. 25-50194 counseling recommendation was a clerical error warranting correction. We address each argument below. II. First, we turn to Vacchino’s arguments about the supervised