Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0590-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raymond ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-41711 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 09/06/2016
    
      Andrew R. Gould, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Raymond Estrada, Pro Se.
    Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Raymond Estrada pleaded guilty to a single count of possession with intent to. distribute cocaine base. As part of his sentence, the district court imposed a special condition of supervised release that, in relevant part, requires Estrada “to participate in a mental health program as deemed necessary and approved by the probation officer.” Estrada argues that this condition is ambiguous because it appears to both require him to participate in a mental health program and to delegate to the probation officer a decision as to whether he must participate in such a program.

Because Estrada did not object to this condition in the district court, we review for plain error. To show plain error, Estrada must show á forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial lights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

We have not addressed in a published opinion “the statutory and constitutional limits on a district court’s authority to delegate to a probation officer the determination .of whether and to what extent a convicted defendant on supervised release must participate in counseling.” United States v. Bishop, 603 F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 2010). Because the issue remains unsettled in this circuit, Estrada cannot show that the error, if any, was clear or obvious. See id.; see also United States v. Tang, 718 F.3d 476, 487-88 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore, he has not shown that the district court committed plain error by imposing this special condition.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.