United States v. Torres-Galaviz | Docket

United States v. Torres-Galaviz

The Fifth Circuit granted the Government’s unopposed motion to vacate two supervised-release conditions and affirm Jose Torres-Galaviz’s sentence as modified, while denying as moot the alternative motion for additional briefing time. Judge Oldham dissented, reiterating that the court’s practice of summarily vacating supervised-release conditions and entering judgment for the defendant is flawed, particularly when based on an intervening decision issued after sentencing.

Docket

Court

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Court level

appellate

Jurisdiction

Federal

Date filed

August 13, 2026

Parties

United States of America · appelleeJose Torres-Galaviz · appellant

Judges

Smith · majorityStewart · majorityOldham · dissent

Status

published

Disposition

Appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate two supervised release conditions and affirm the sentence as modified is granted; the alternative motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief is denied as moot.

Opinion type

combined

Format

order

Source

View PDF

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

No. 25-51052

United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee , versus Jose Torres-Galaviz, Defendant—Appellant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:25-CR-1384-1

PUBLISHED ORDER

Before Smith, Stewart, and Oldham, Circuit Judges .

Per Curiam:

IT IS ORDERED that Appellee's unopposed motion to vacate two supervised release conditions and to affirm the sentence as modified is GRANTED .

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed alternative motion to extend time to file the brief of appellee for 30 days upon the denial of the motion vacate supervised release conditions is DENIED AS MOOT .

Page 2Judge Oldham dissents and reiterates his view that this Court's practice of summarily vacating supervised release conditions and entering judgment for the defendant is deeply flawed. See United States v. Vacchino , 174 F.4th 932, 941 (5th Cir. 2026) ( Oldham, J. , concurring in the judgment); United States v. Baez-Adriano , 74 F.4th 292, 304 (5th Cir. 2023) ( Oldham, J. , concurring in the judgment); United States v. Perez , No. 2320067, 2023 WL 7381447, at *1 n.1 (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2023); United States v. Griffin , No. 21-50294, 2022 WL 17175592, at *3 (5th Cir. Nov. 23, 2022) ( Oldham, J. , dissenting). The practice is particularly troubling when the 'plain error' that necessitates the summary vacatur stems from an intervening Fifth Circuit decision that did not exist at the time of sentencing. United States v. del Carpio Frescas , 932 F.3d 324, 341 (5th Cir. 2019) ( Oldham , J., concurring).