Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rafael Perdomo-Limus pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court imposed special conditions on his supervised release as part of the sentence. Perdomo-Limus appealed, challenging the validity of these supervised-release conditions.
On appeal, Perdomo-Limus argued that the conditions were not adequately pronounced at sentencing and that the district court erred by failing to explicitly inquire whether he had reviewed the presentence report and its appendix with counsel prior to sentencing.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. The court found that Perdomo-Limus failed to demonstrate any error—plain or otherwise—in the district court’s oral pronouncement of his sentence. Specifically, the court rejected his argument that the district court was required to explicitly inquire whether he had reviewed the presentence report and appendix with counsel before sentencing.
The panel cited United States v. Villafana-Mondragon, 170 F.4th 360, 363-65 (5th Cir. 2026), for the proposition that such explicit inquiry is not required. By affirming without published opinion, the court signaled that this issue presented no novel or precedent-setting questions.
Key Takeaways
- District courts need not explicitly inquire into whether a defendant reviewed the presentence report and appendix with counsel before imposing sentence
- Appellants challenging sentencing conditions must affirmatively demonstrate error to succeed on appeal
- Oral pronouncement of sentence need not include specific colloquy regarding review of presentence materials
Why It Matters
This decision establishes clear guidance for federal sentencing practice in the Fifth Circuit. Trial courts conducting sentencing hearings need not engage in additional questioning about presentence report review, streamlining the sentencing process while preserving defendants’ appellate rights. The ruling will impact immigration cases and other federal crimes where special conditions of supervised release are imposed.
The affirmance reinforces that procedural challenges to sentencing require concrete showings of error. Defendants cannot rest on procedural arguments alone; they must demonstrate how any alleged omission affected the validity or pronouncement of their sentence.