Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
July 14, 2023
No. 22-10305
Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Roy Dean Jacquot, III,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-162-1
______________________________
Before Haynes and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges, and deGravelles,
District Judge.1
Per Curiam:*
Appellant Roy Dean Jacquot III (“Jacquot”) appeals conditions of his
supervised release that include a provision that he “shall participate in a
program inpatient and/or outpatient approved by the U.S. Probation Office
_____________________
1
United States District Judge for the Middle District of Louisiana, sitting by
designation.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-10305
for treatment of narcotic, drug[,] or alcohol dependency.” For the reasons
explained below, we dismiss the appeal.
I. Background
In 2020, Roy Dean Jacquot, III, pleaded guilty to one count of
possession of stolen mail. The district court sentenced him to 11 months in
prison and two years of supervised release. Jacquot’s supervised release
began on September 10, 2021. His conditions of supervised release precluded
him from possessing illegal controlled substances, required him to participate
in an outpatient program approved by the probation officer for treatment of
narcotic or drug or alcohol dependency, and mandated that he abstain from
the use of alcohol and all other intoxicants during and after completion of
treatment.
In November 2021, the probation officer, with the consent of Jacquot,
requested that the conditions of supervised release be modified, because
Jacquot began to use and possess methamphetamine and failed to attend and
to participate in outpatient treatment. Jacquot informed his probation officer
that he would like to enter inpatient substance abuse treatment and to
participate in mental health counseling. The petition therefore requested the
addition of supervised release conditions that required Jacquot to take part in
mental health treatment services as directed by the probation officer until
successfully discharged and to participate in an inpatient and/or outpatient
substance abuse treatment program approved by the United States Probation
Office. The district court granted the request and added the conditions of
supervised release.
Shortly thereafter, the probation officer filed a report that detailed
Jacquot’s failure to adhere to the conditions of his supervision. The probation
officer set forth that Jacquot had used and possessed controlled substances
on multiple instances. The probation officer detailed that Jacquot had
2
Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-10305
entered inpatient substance abuse treatment and was undergoing evaluations
to address his potential physical and behavioral health issues.
In February 2022, the probation officer filed a petition which alleged
that Jacquot had possessed illegal controlled substances and had failed to
comply with the special conditions that required him to refrain from using
controlled substances and to participate in substance abuse treatment and
testing programs. The petition also alleged that Jacquot violated the standard
conditions that required him to report to his probation officer as instructed
and that mandated that he reside at a place approved by the probation officer
and provide notification of an address change. An arrest warrant was issued.
At the ensuing revocation hearing, Jacquot pleaded true to each of the
allegations in the petition. The district court found that Jacquot violated the
conditions of his supervision and revoked his supervised release. The district
court sentenced him to eight months in prison—which was within the
advisory guidelines range and less than the statutory maximum sentence—
and ordered a 24-month term of supervised release. In addition, the district
court reimposed the conditions of supervised release in the criminal
judgment, as later modified, and discussed mandatory and standard
conditions with which Jacquot had to comply. The district court also orally
pronounced that Jacquot “shall participate in a program inpatient and/or
outpatient approved by the U.S. Probation Office for treatment of narcotic,
drug[,] or alcohol dependency.” Jacquot did not make an objection. Jacquot
filed a timely appeal.
II. Legal Standard
Because Jacquot did not object to the imposition of the condition that
he participate in an inpatient or outpatient drug rehabilitation program, and
because he had notice of the condition and the opportunity to object in the
district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d
3
Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-10305
551, 559 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). To show plain error, Jacquot “must show
that (1) the district court erred; (2) the error was clear and obvious; and (3)
the error affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Vargas, 21 F.4th
332, 334 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135
(2009)). If Jacquot makes that showing, this court should exercise its
discretion to correct the error if the error “seriously affects the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Molina-Martinez v.
United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016).
III. Discussion
A. Fugitive Disentitlement
During the pendency of this appeal, Jacquot failed to appear before the
District Court for the Northern District of Texas at a hearing to determine
whether his supervised relief should be revoked. The district court issued a
bench warrant for Jacquot’s arrest, and today Jacquot remains a fugitive. The
fugitive-disentitlement doctrine permits a court to dismiss a defendant’s
appeal if he flees while the appeal is pending. “It has been settled for well
over a century that an appellate court may dismiss the appeal of a defendant
who is a fugitive from justice during the pendency of his appeal.” See Ortega-
Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 239 (1993). The rationale for the
doctrine includes concerns about the enforceability of the appellate court’s
judgment against the fugitive, see Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (1876);
the belief that flight “disentitles” the fugitive to relief, see Molinaro v. New
Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366 (1970); and the desire to promote the “efficient
dignified operation” of the appellate court, see Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S.
534, 537 (1975).
A term of supervised release is an integral part of a judgment and
sentence, a period within which an offender can be reintegrated into society
under the supervision of the criminal justice system. This court will not
4
Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-10305
diminish the importance of that period by disregarding the status of those
who become fugitives during supervised release. Upon careful consideration,
we apply the fugitive-disentitlement doctrine to this case, and we hold this
appeal is subject to dismissal pursuant to the fugitive-disentitlement
doctrine.
B. Delegation to Probation
Alternatively, we would affirm the judgment of the district court for
the following reasons. Jacquot argues that the district court erred by
delegating the option to choose between inpatient and outpatient drug rehab
treatment to Jacquot’s probation officer. “While probation officers may
‘manage aspects of sentences’ and oversee the conditions of supervised
release, a probation officer may not exercise the ‘core judicial function’ of
imposing a sentence, ‘including the terms and conditions of supervised
release.’” United States v. Martinez, 987 F.3d 432, 435 (5th Cir. 2021)
(quoting United States v. Barber, 865 F.3d 837, 839 (5th Cir. 2017)).
In Martinez, we considered a nearly identical condition of release and
ruled that due to the criminal defendant’s “short ten-month sentence, the
district court should not have delegated the decision to further restrict a
defendant’s liberty during the course of treatment while on supervised
release.” Martinez, 987 F.3d at 436 (5th Cir. 2021). However, Martinez was
not a plain error case and is thus not dispositive. We will nonetheless assume
arguendo that Jacquot has met the first three prongs of the plain error review.
Nonetheless, we conclude that we should not exercise our discretion in his
favor because of the particular facts here. Jacquot previously requested a
modification of his conditions of supervised release from outpatient
treatment to inpatient treatment which the district court agreed to.
Accordingly, at this sentencing, the district court was merely reinstating that
which Jacquot had previously requested and agreed to and which he did not
5
Case: 22-10305 Document: 00516820856 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/14/2023
No. 22-10305
object to. Indeed, his conduct since demonstrates why he wanted and needed
the inpatient treatment. Thus, we do not find that any error in this regard
“seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” Molina-Martinez 578 U.S. at 194. Thus, in the alternative, we
affirm the district court.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
6
United States v. Jacquot
Combined Opinion