Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Robert J. Nunes, Petitioner v. United States

No. ______________

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

___________

Robert J. Nunes,

Petitioner,

v.

United States of America,

Respondent.

___________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

___________

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

___________

Jason D. Hawkins

Federal Public Defender

Maria Gabriela Vega

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Federal Public Defender’s Office

Northern District of Texas

525 South Griffin Street, Suite 629

Dallas, TX 75202

(214) 767-2746

gabriela_vega@fd.org

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the absence of a binding, on-point decision of either this Court, or of the

reviewing court of appeals, is enough for an error not to be “plain” within the meaning

of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b).

i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner is Robert J. Nunes, who was the Defendant-Appellant in the court

below. Respondent, the United States of America, was the Plaintiff-Appellee in the

court below.

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

•

United States v. Nunes, No. 4:13-cr-00084-Y, U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Texas. Judgment entered on Oct. 14, 2025.

•

United States v. Nunes, No. 25-11180, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judgment entered on May 13, 2026.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Presented......................................................................................................... i

Parties to the Proceeding .............................................................................................. ii

Related Proceedings....................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... iii

Appendices .................................................................................................................... iv

Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................... v

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari .................................................................................... 1

Opinions Below .............................................................................................................. 1

Jurisdiction .................................................................................................................... 1

Provisions Involved ........................................................................................................ 1

Statement of the Case ................................................................................................... 2

I.

Facts and Proceedings in District Court....................................................... 2

II.

Appellate Proceedings ................................................................................... 3

Reasons For Granting This Petition ............................................................................. 3

I.

The Fifth Circuit restricts the scope of plain error’s second prong in a way

that all other circuits reject. .......................................................................... 4

A.

The Fifth Circuit regularly takes the absence of binding, on-point

precedent to preclude a finding that error is plain............................ 4

B.

In every other circuit with criminal jurisdiction, the absence of

binding case authority alone is insufficient to preclude a finding

that error is plain. ............................................................................... 5

C.

This Court has needed to correct the Fifth Circuit’s application of

Olano and Rule 52(b) at other points of the analysis. ....................... 8

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix

iii

APPENDICES

Appendix A Opinion, United States v. Nunes, No. 25-11180

(5th Cir. May 13, 2026) ............................................ Pet. App’x a001–002

Appendix B Judgment and Sentence, United States v. Nunes, No. 4:13-cr-00084-Y

(N.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2025) ........................................ Pet. App’x a003–a004

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Federal Cases

Davis v. United States,

589 U.S. 345 (2020) .................................................................................................. 8

Molina-Martinez v. United States,

578 U.S. 189 (2016) .................................................................................................. 8

Rosales-Mireles v. United States,

585 U.S. 129 (2018) .................................................................................................. 8

In re Sealed Case,

573 F.3d 844 (D.C. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................. 7

United States v. Abney,

957 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................. 7

United States v. Bankston,

945 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................ 7

United States v. Barrios,

No. 24-20262, 2025 WL 1410409 (5th Cir. May 15, 2025) ...................................... 4

United States v. Blount,

906 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................... 4

United States v. Brown,

352 F.3d 654 (2d Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................... 7

United States v. Burroughs,

613 F.3d 233 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................. 7

United States v. Bush,

110 F.4th 1246 (11th Cir. 2024) ............................................................................... 7

United States v. Cole,

567 F.3d 110 (3d Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................... 6

United States v. Ehle,

640 F.3d 689 (6th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................... 6

United States v. Evans,

155 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................... 6

v

United States v. Evans,

587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................ 4, 5

United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez,

415 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 5

United States v. Gonzalez,

792 F.3d 534 (5th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................... 4

United States v. Gore,

154 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1998) .................................................................................... 6, 8

United States v. Green,

996 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2021) .................................................................................... 6

United States v. Hagen,

911 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................... 6

United States v. Irons,

31 F.4th 702 (9th Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................... 7

United States v. Lovelace,

565 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................. 6

United States v. McCrimon,

788 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................ 6

United States v. McGavitt,

28 F.4th 571 (5th Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................... 4

United States v. Miller,

406 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 5

United States v. Morales,

801 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015) ......................................................................................... 7

United States v. Muhlenbruch,

634 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................... 6

United States v. Nunes,

No. 25-11180, 2026 WL 1333796 (5th Cir. May 13, 2026) ...................................... 3

United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725 (1993) .......................................................................................... 3, 4, 8

United States v. Perez-Rodriguez,

13 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................... 6

vi

United States v. Salas,

889 F.3d 681 (10th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................. 7

United States v. Seals,

813 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................. 6

United States v. Vega,

332 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................... 5

United States v. Wilson,

143 F.4th 647 (5th Cir. 2025) ................................................................................... 5

Federal Statutes

18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) ........................................................................................................ 1

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ........................................................................................................ 1

Rules

Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) .................................................................................... 1, 3, 4, 8, 9

vii

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Robert J. Nunes seeks a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

OPINIONS BELOW

The Fifth Circuit’s unpublished opinion is available at United States v. Nunes,

No. 25-11180, 2026 WL 1333796 (5th Cir. May 13, 2026). It is reprinted in Appendix

A to this Petition. The district court’s judgment and sentence in United States v.

Nunes, No. 4:13-cr-00084-Y (N.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2025), is reprinted in Appendix B.

JURISDICTION

The Fifth Circuit entered judgment on May 13, 2026. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b):

Plain Error. A plain error that affects substantial rights

may be considered even though it was not brought to the

court’s attention.

18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), in pertinent part:

(d)…The court may order, as a further condition of supervised release, to the extent that such condition—

(1) is reasonably related to the factors set forth in section

3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D);

(2) involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for the purposes set forth in section

3553(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D); and

(3) is consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

994(a);

1

any condition set forth as a discretionary condition of probation in section 3563(b) and any other condition it considers to be appropriate . . . .

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I.

Facts and Proceedings in District Court

In 2013, a district court sentenced Petitioner Robert J. Nunes to 72 months

imprisonment and three years of supervised release for violating 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). ROA.136-39.1 The conditions of supervised release ordered Nunes to:

have no contact with minors under the age of 18, including

by correspondence, telephone, internet, electronic communication, or communication through third parties. The defendant shall not have access to or loiter near school

grounds, parks, arcades, playgrounds, amusement parks or

other places where children may frequently congregate, except as may be allowed upon advance approval by the probation officer[.]

ROA.138. Nunes began his initial supervised release term on March 15, 2019.

ROA.159. The court revoked that term on November 5, 2024, imposing one week of

imprisonment and reimposing ten years of supervised release. ROA.154-56, 159. The

court ordered “the same conditions as were imposed by” the 2013 judgment. ROA.155.

Nunes began to serve this second term of supervised release on November 8, 2024.

ROA.158. The district court revoked this second term of supervised release on October 14, 2025, imposing six months imprisonment. ROA.176, 208; Pet. App’x a004. The

district court also reimposed a third term of supervised release for ten years, during

1 “ROA” refers to the record on appeal.

2

which the court ordered Nunes to “comply with all of the conditions imposed by this

Court” in the initial judgment. ROA.176, 208-09; Pet. App’x a004.

II.

Appellate Proceedings

Nunes raised a single issue on appeal: Whether the district court committed

reversible plain error by ordering as a condition of supervised release that Nunes

have no contact with minors without exception. Nunes relied on a body of caselaw to

argue that the court’s error was clear or obvious under a well-settled legal principle.

The government countered that Nunes could not demonstrate plain error because a

finding of error would require an extension, rather a straightforward application, of

precedent.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed. United States v. Nunes, No. 25-11180, 2026 WL

1333796 (5th Cir. May 13, 2026) (reprinted at Pet. App’x a001–a002). It found that

Nunes’s claim of error was “subject to reasonable dispute,” and thus not “plain” error.

2026 WL 1333796, at *1; Pet. App’x a002.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS PETITION

The Federal Rules provide that “[a] plain error that affects substantial rights

may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.” Fed. R.

Crim. P. 52(b). Error is “plain,” within the meaning of Rule 52(b), if it is clear or

obvious under current law. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-33 (1993).

The panel below treated the absence of a binding case squarely on point as

preclusive of clear or obvious error. But other circuits hold that the absence of such a

case is a factor that, while weighty, is not dispositive.

3

The Court should grant certiorari to resolve that the absence of on-point binding precedent is not dispositive on the clarity of the error.

I.

The Fifth Circuit restricts the scope of plain error’s second prong in a

way that all other circuits reject.

The Fifth Circuit stands alone in routinely holding, as it did here, that the lack

of binding, on-point precedent alone is enough to prevent a finding that alleged error

is clear or obvious under current law, and thus “plain” within the meaning of Rule

52(b). Every other court of appeals with criminal jurisdiction has issued multiple authoritative decisions registering the opposite view: unpreserved error may be plain,

these circuits all hold, even in the absence of a binding decision directly on point.

A.

The Fifth Circuit regularly takes the absence of binding, onpoint precedent to preclude a finding that error is plain.

The Fifth Circuit has long taken the position that the “lack of binding authority

is often dispositive in the plain-error context.” United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d

534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Olano, 507 U.S. at 734). That is, where there is “no

precedential decision” of either the Fifth Circuit or this Court answering the precise

legal issue underlying the claim of error, Gonzalez, 792 F.3d at 538, the Fifth Circuit

holds that a defendant “cannot show the district court committed clear or obvious

error due to” that fact alone, United States v. Barrios, No. 24-20262, 2025 WL

1410409, at *1 (5th Cir. May 15, 2025) (citing United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667,

671 (5th Cir. 2009), and Gonzalez, 792 F.3d at 538). See also, e.g., United States v.

McGavitt, 28 F.4th 571, 577 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Gonzalez, 792 F.3d at 538) (“In

this circuit, a ‘lack of binding authority is often dispositive in the plain error context.’”); United States v. Blount, 906 F.3d 381, 385 (5th Cir. 2018) (“[G]iven the lack

4

of authoritative precedent suggesting” the defendant’s interpretation of a guideline,

“the district court’s alleged error certainly was not ‘obvious,’ ‘readily apparent,’ or in

a word, plain.”); United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 852 n.3 (5th Cir. 2003) (“We

conclude that any error by the district court in this regard was not plain or obvious,

as we have not previously addressed this issue”).

There are many other formulations of this same rule. See, e.g.,; Evans, 587 F.3d

at 671 (cleaned up) (“We ordinarily do not find plain error when we have not previously addressed an issue. Even where the argument requires only extending authoritative precedent, the failure of the district court to do so cannot be plain error.”);

United States v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 415 F.3d 452, 455 (5th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up)

(“Under plain error, if a defendant’s theory requires the extension of precedent, any

potential error could not have been ‘plain.’”); United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323,

330 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Absent any precedent directly supporting Miller’s contention,”

even if the argument “possess[es] some intuitive appeal,” “it cannot be said that the

alleged error was ‘plain’ for purposes of our review.”). But the result is the same:

“Without a clear decision from the Supreme Court or” the Fifth Circuit, “there can be

no plain error.” United States v. Wilson, 143 F.4th 647, 666 n.9 (5th Cir. 2025).

B.

In every other circuit with criminal jurisdiction, the absence of

binding case authority alone is insufficient to preclude a finding that error is plain.

Every other court of appeals with criminal jurisdiction, in contrast, has issued

authoritative decisions acknowledging that error may be clear or obvious under current law, and thus plain, even in the absence of a prior binding decision of that circuit

or this Court:

5

First Circuit:

United States v. Perez-Rodriguez, 13 F.4th 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2021)

(quoting s, 801 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2015)) (“The second prong”—

whether the error “was clear or obvious”—“requires that the error

identified in the first prong is not ‘open to doubt or question,’

though an appellant can meet this requirement even in the ‘absence of a decision directly on point.’”).

Second Circuit: United States v. Gore, 154 F.3d 34, 43 (2d Cir. 1998) (cleaned up)

(“The lack of this Court’s precedent directly on point” not dispositive because “this is not a case in which we have taken no position

on a certain issue and upon which no other circuit has spoken, or

upon which there is a sharp dispute among the other circuits.”);

United States v. McCrimon, 788 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding

error plain “[g]iven the plain meaning of the provision’s language

and the widespread agreement among our sister circuits”).

Third Circuit:

United States v. Cole, 567 F.3d 110, 117 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting

United States v. Evans, 155 F.3d 245, 252 (3d Cir. 1998)) (“Neither the absence of circuit precedent nor the lack of consideration

of the issue by another court prevents the clearly erroneous application of statutory law from being plain error.”).

Fourth Circuit:

United States v. Green, 996 F.3d 176, 185 (4th Cir. 2021) (“[I]t is

possible for a district court to commit plain error even where, as

here, there is no controlling authority from the Supreme Court or

Fourth Circuit.”).

Sixth Circuit:

United States v. Ehle, 640 F.3d 689, 698–99 (6th Cir. 2011) (precedent “sufficiently analogous to the instant matter” can make an

error “quite ‘plain.’”).

Seventh Circuit: United States v. Seals, 813 F.3d 1038, 1047–48 (7th Cir. 2016)

(citing McCrimon approvingly) (also finding error “in a case of

first impression”); United States v. Hagen, 911 F.3d 891, 895–96

(7th Cir. 2019) (Barrett, J.) (finding plain error based on “obvious

similarities” between the issue at hand and an analogous context).

Eighth Circuit:

United States v. Muhlenbruch, 634 F.3d 987, 1004 (8th Cir. 2011)

(“Although this case presents an issue of first impression in our

circuit,” “we find that the district court’s error was plain” based

on a “well entrenched” precedents whose “implications” were

“clear”); United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080, 1092 (8th Cir.

2009) (finding plain error “[a]lthough the facts and circumstances

6

of this case differ” given analogous cases applying the legal rule

at issue).

Ninth Circuit:

United States v. Irons, 31 F.4th 702 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[O]ur textual

analysis is sufficiently one-sided, and sufficiently dictates the answer, that the district court’s error is ‘plain’” even though the

court “followed an unpublished decision of this court”).

Tenth Circuit:

United States v. Salas, 889 F.3d 681, 687 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting

United States v. Ruiz–Gea, 340 F.3d 1181, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003))

(“In general, for an error to be contrary to well-settled law, either

the Supreme Court or this court must have addressed the issue.

The absence of such precedent will not, however, prevent a finding of plain error if the district court’s interpretation was ‘clearly

erroneous.’”).

Eleventh Circuit: United States v. Bush, 110 F.4th 1246, 1252–53 (11th Cir. 2024)

(error was plain based on a body of caselaw and pattern jury instructions); United States v. Bankston, 945 F.3d 1316, 1318–19

(11th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up) (“An error is obvious when it flies in

the face of either binding precedent or the explicit language of a

statute or rule. Here, we have no precedent interpreting the relevant language, and our analysis” finding plain error “begins and

ends with the language of the Sentencing Guidelines.”).

D.C. Circuit:

United States v. Abney, 957 F.3d 241, 252 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Sealed Case, 573 F.3d 844, 851 (D.C. Cir. 2009)) (“[A]n

error can be plain” “[e]ven absent binding case law” “if it violates

an ‘absolutely clear’ legal norm….”).

In short, every other circuit recognizes that “[t]he lack of case law squarely on

point,” while it may “‘militate against’ plain error,” “is not dispositive.” United States

v. Burroughs, 613 F.3d 233, 244 (D.C. Cir. 2010); accord United States v. Morales, 801

F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2015) (“[T]he absence of a decision directly on point does not remove the potential for a finding of plain error. Instead, the inquiry is always whether

the error is open to doubt or question.”). This is because the “‘plainness’ of [an] error

can depend on well-settled legal principles as much as well-settled legal precedents.”

United States v. Brown, 352 F.3d 654, 664 (2d Cir. 2003) (original emphasis). A legal

7

rule, and the ensuing deviation from it, may be plain, despite the absence of binding

authority so holding in the exact fact pattern at issue. See, e.g., Gore, 154 F.3d at 47

(2d Cir.) (“[T]he rules laid out in Rutledge, Prince, the uniform holdings of our sister

circuits, and our own line of cases are relevant precedents with a sufficient level of

specific applicability to the facts of this case so that the district court’s error was clear

and obvious….”).

C.

This Court has needed to correct the Fifth Circuit’s application

of Olano and Rule 52(b) at other points of the analysis.

This is not the first time this Court’s intervention is necessary to address the

Fifth Circuit’s outlier standards for applying Olano and Rule 52(b). See Davis v.

United States, 589 U.S. 345 (2020), Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129

(2018), and Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016). In Molina-Martinez, the Court rejected as inconsistent with “the text of Rule 52(b)” and “the Court’s

precedents” a requirement that a defendant—whose sentence was anchored to a

plainly incorrect Guidelines range—muster “additional evidence” to establish that

the error affected his substantial rights. See 578 U.S. at 197–98. In Rosales-Mireles,

the Court rejected an articulation of Olano’s fourth prong that “too narrowly confine[d]” discretionary relief from plain Guidelines errors to those that “shock the conscious.” See 585 U.S. at 137–38. And, most recently in Davis, the Court summarily

reversed an “outlier practice” holding that errors of fact, as opposed to errors of law,

could never amount to “plain” error. See 589 U.S. at 347.

The Fifth Circuit’s binding-precedent gloss on Olano’s second prong is of a piece

with the standards invalidated in Molina-Martinez, Rosales-Mireles, and Davis. Each

8

represents a gloss on Rule 52(b) that finds no footing in the rule’s text or in this

Court’s cases. And each has the effect of erecting an unprincipled barrier to relief

from obvious and prejudicial errors. This Court should intervene to correct the outlier

interpretation of Rule 52(b) at issue here as well and clarify that Rule 52(b) requires

error to be “plain,” not directly addressed in a prior binding decision.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner Robert J. Nunes respectfully submits that this Court should grant

certiorari.

Respectfully submitted this 11th day of August, 2026.

JASON D. HAWKINS

Federal Public Defender

Northern District of Texas

/s/ Maria Gabriela Vega

Maria Gabriela Vega

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Federal Public Defender’s Office

525 S. Griffin Street, Suite 629

Dallas, Texas 75202

Telephone: (214) 767-2746

gabriela_vega@fd.org

Attorney for Petitioner Robert J. Nunes

9

Case: 25-11180

Document: 50-1

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/13/2026

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

____________

FILED

May 13, 2026

No. 25-11180

Summary Calendar

____________

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Robert J. Nunes,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-84-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Robert J. Nunes appeals the sentence imposed following the

revocation of his supervised release. Nunes argues that the district court

plainly erred in imposing, as part of his new 10-year supervised release term,

an unconditional ban on contact with minors because the condition is not

sufficiently narrowly tailored to achieve a balance between protecting his

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Pet. App'x a001

Case: 25-11180

Document: 50-1

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/13/2026

No. 25-11180

liberty interest in freely associating with minors and the Government’s

interest in protecting the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2); United States v.

Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149, 152-53 (5th Cir. 2009).

Although the issue may be “subject to reasonable dispute,” Nunes

has not shown that the district court, in imposing the 10-year associational

ban, clearly or obviously erred under our existing precedent. Puckett v. United

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Accordingly, he has failed to show plain

error. See id.

AFFIRMED.

Pet. App'x a002

2

Case 4:13-cr-00084-Y

Document 80

Filed 10/14/25

Page 1 of 2

PageID 390

United States District Court

Northern District of Texas

Fort Worth Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

for revocation of supervised release

v.

ROBERT J. NUNES

Case number: 4:13-CR-084-Y (1)

Aisha Saleem, assistant U.S. attorney

Joshua S. Rhodes, attorney for the defendant

On October 14, 2025, a hearing was held, at which time the Court determined that the defendant, Robert J.

Nunes, had violated his conditions of supervised release. Accordingly, the defendant is adjudged guilty of such

violations, which involve the following conditions:

CONDITION

NATURE OF VIOLATION

VIOLATION CONCLUDED

Standard condition

no. 3, additional

condition

Viewing animated pornographic matter depicting

children

November 2024 through

February 2025

Standard condition

no. 3, additional

condition

Viewing pornographic matter depicting children

and adults

November 2024 through

August 2025

Standard condition

no. 3, additional

condition

Being untruthful when answering question

regarding viewing pornography in submitted sex

offender supplemental report forms

2024 through 2025

Additional condition

Using a “smartphone” with internet capabilities,

without prior approval from the probation office,

to view adult and child pornography

November 2024

through August 2025

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages one through two of this judgment. The sentence is imposed

under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant shall notify the United States attorney for this district within thirty (30) days of any change of

name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment

are fully paid.

Sentence imposed October 14, 2025.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed October 14, 2025.

Pet. App'x a003

Case 4:13-cr-00084-Y

Document 80

Filed 10/14/25

Judgment in a Criminal Case

Defendant: Robert J. Nunes

Case Number: 4:13-CR-084-Y (1)

Page 2 of 2

PageID 391

Judgment -- Page 2 of 2

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant, Robert J. Nunes, is hereby committed to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to be

imprisoned for a term of 6 months, under USSG § 7B1.4(a), p.s.

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States marshal.

SUPERVISED RELEASE

Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be placed on supervised release for a term of 120 months.

While on supervised release, he shall comply with all of the conditions imposed by this Court in its Judgment in a

Criminal Case signed and entered on November 13, 2013, in this case, case no. 4:13-CR-084-Y, and any additional

conditions imposed thereafter and made of record, and the following condition: The defendant shall reside in the

residential re-entry center and successfully participate in the residential re-entry center program located at the

Volunteers of America (VOA), 800 W. Wintergreen Road, Hutchins, Texas 75141, for a period of no more than 180

consecutive days, to be released at the direction of the probation officer. While there, the defendant will initially

participate in its community corrections component, but may become eligible the last one-third of the term of

confinement for placement in its prerelease component upon approval of the program review team and provided the

defendant meets all the center's requirements.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

Defendant delivered on _________________________ to__________________________________________

at____________________________________________________________, with a certified copy of this judgment.

__________________________________

United States marshal

BY _______________________________

deputy marshal

Pet. App'x a004