Summary
holding that it was not plain error to delegate whether and to what extent the defendant should participate in counseling
Summary of this case from U.S. v. BishopOpinion
No. 09-40043 Summary Calendar.
October 8, 2009.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 2:05-CR-20-ALL.
Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Esiquiel De Los Santos appeals from the district court's January 12, 2009, judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment to be followed by an 18-month supervised release term. As special conditions of his supervision, the district court ordered De Los Santos, "[a]s deemed necessary by the probation officer," to participate in a drug treatment program and in a mental health treatment program. De Los Santos argues that the district court committed plain error by delegating to the probation officer the authority to decide whether he should undergo mental health and drug treatment. Citing United States v. Albro, 32 F.3d 173, 174 (5th Cir. 1994), he argues that the district court impermissibly delegated its Article III power to impose conditions of supervised release by giving the probation officer discretion to decide whether he should participate in mental health and drug treatment programs.
To show plain error, De Los Santos must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 962, 173 L.Ed.2d 153 (2009). Our precedents do not plainly require the result De Los Santos urges. See United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 853-54 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2002).
* * *
The judgment is AFFIRMED.