United States v. De Los Santos , 332 F. App'x 993 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    October 8, 2009
    No. 09-40043
    Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff–Appellee,
    v.
    ESIQUIEL DE LOS SANTOS,
    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.
    PER CURIAM:*
    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
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 09-40043
    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, 
    129 S. Ct. 962
    (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.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-40043

Citation Numbers: 332 F. App'x 993

Judges: Clement, Garza, Owen, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/8/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023