United States v. Quezada-Atayde: Fifth Circuit Clarifies that Oral Adoption of the PSR Satisfies the Pronouncement Requirement for Special Supervised-Release Conditions

Introduction

United States v. Quezada-Atayde, No. 24-20570 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025) concerns an appeal by Cesar Quezada-Atayde, a Mexican national convicted of illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Although he received a within-Guidelines custodial sentence of 24 months, the dispute before the Fifth Circuit centred exclusively on two special conditions of supervised release placed in the written judgment:

Continuous reporting to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and compliance with deportation-related instructions.
Obtaining work authorisation from ICE.

At the sentencing hearing the district court did not read these conditions verbatim. Instead, it confirmed that the defendant and counsel had reviewed the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and then “adopted” the PSR in open court, referencing “any additional conditions as noted in the appendix of the PSR.” Quezada-Atayde asserted on appeal that the written judgment therefore “expanded” the oral sentence, violating the long-standing “oral pronouncement rule.”

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit (Chief Judge Elrod, joined by Judges Higginson and Ramirez) affirmed. It held that:

The defendant had notice of the special conditions because the PSR, reviewed before sentencing, listed them in detail.
The court’s oral adoption of the PSR, coupled with explicit verification that counsel and the defendant had read it, satisfied the oral-pronouncement requirement articulated in United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc).
Because the defendant had an opportunity to object yet failed to do so, review was for plain error, which he could not establish.
Accordingly, there was no conflict between the oral sentence and the written judgment; the sentence stood in full.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The panel relied heavily on a series of recent Fifth Circuit cases that have reshaped the procedural law of sentencing:

United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc) – Established that discretionary (i.e., not statutorily mandated) supervised-release conditions must be orally pronounced, but pronouncement can be satisfied by clear adoption of an external document the defendant has reviewed.
United States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2020) – Clarified that word-for-word recital is unnecessary; notice and opportunity to object suffice.
United States v. Martinez, 47 F.4th 364 (5th Cir. 2022) – Confirmed that the standard of review (plain error vs. abuse of discretion) hinges on whether there was an opportunity to object below.
United States v. Baez-Adriano, 74 F.4th 292 (5th Cir. 2023) – Applied the distinction between preserved and forfeited objections to supervised-release conditions.
United States v. Rouland, 726 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 2013) – Earlier acknowledgement that adoption of the PSR can constitute oral pronouncement.
United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2016) – Cited by Diggles; emphasised the adequacy of pre-hearing notice through the PSR.

Legal Reasoning

Standard of Review – The court applied plain-error review because Quezada-Atayde had notice and an opportunity to object but did not do so, thus forfeiting the argument (Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b)).
Oral Pronouncement Requirement – Under Diggles, special or discretionary conditions must be orally pronounced or incorporated by express reference to a reviewed document. The sentencing judge:
- Verified on the record that defendant and counsel had read the PSR.
- Adopted the PSR in its entirety, including the appendix listing special conditions.
- Gave parties a final opportunity for “any legal objections.”
This, the panel held, met the pronouncement requirement.
No Conflict between Oral and Written Sentences – A written judgment conflicts with an oral sentence only if it adds materially new, more onerous conditions. Because the oral adoption already embraced the PSR’s conditions, the written judgment merely memorialised what had been imposed.
No Plain Error – Even if any defect existed, the defendant could not show that it was “clear or obvious” or affected his substantial rights, as required under the plain-error framework.

Impact

The ruling cements a practical protocol for district courts and counsel:

District Courts may continue to satisfy the pronouncement rule by expressly adopting the PSR—so long as they verify defendant review and extend an opportunity to object.
Defence Counsel must be vigilant: failure to object after the court adopts a PSR will normally forfeit challenges to supervised-release conditions on appeal.
Immigration-Focused Cases – The Fifth Circuit applied existing pronouncement principles to immigration-related special conditions (reporting to ICE, work authorisation), signalling that these conditions do not require separate oral recital if properly incorporated.
Expect fewer remands for technical pronouncement errors when the PSR route is used correctly, reinforcing procedural efficiency.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supervised Release – A period of community supervision that follows imprisonment; violations can lead to additional sanctions.
Special Conditions – Tailored requirements (e.g., immigration reporting, treatment programs) not automatically imposed by statute and therefore considered “discretionary.”
Oral Pronouncement Rule – The defendant has the right to be sentenced in open court; any discretionary term must be stated orally so objections can be raised.
Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) – A comprehensive report prepared by probation officers that includes offense details, criminal history, Guideline calculations, and proposed supervision conditions.
Plain Error Review – A stringent appellate standard: the error must be (1) clear or obvious, (2) affect substantial rights, and (3) seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

United States v. Quezada-Atayde reinforces and slightly extends the Fifth Circuit’s post-Diggles jurisprudence on supervised-release conditions:

Express oral adoption of a PSR—after confirming defendant review—satisfies the pronouncement requirement for discretionary conditions.
Failure to object at sentencing will usually relegate the defendant to plain-error review, a nearly insurmountable hurdle.
The ruling’s specific context (immigration re-entry with deportation-related conditions) clarifies that the same procedural doctrine applies, avoiding any suggestion that immigration conditions require special treatment.

Practitioners should treat the decision as a procedural roadmap: district courts should document PSR adoption clearly, and defence counsel must voice any objections in real time or risk waiver. In the broader canvas, the case contributes to uniform sentencing practices, reducing appellate-level uncertainty and cementing the PSR as a central vehicle for conveying supervised-release conditions.