FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 13, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11440 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 9 9 - CR- 3 - RV U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G L O R I A N E W E L L N A S H , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 13, 2006) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

G l o ri a N ew el l N ash ap p eal s th ree co n d i t i o n s o f h er su p erv i sed rel ease. N ash w as se nt ence d t o ei gh tm on ths of i m pri sonm entand tw o years of supervi se d re l ea se for theftof go vernm entprop erty. S ee 18 U . S . C . § 6 41 . N as h argues that the di stri ctcourtpl ai nl y e rr ed by i m po si ng (1) three cond i t i on s of hersupervi se d r e l e a s e tha ti m pr ope r l y de l e ga t e d aj udi c i a l f unc t i on t o apr oba t i on of f i c e ra nd ( 2) one c ondi t i on tha tw a s unc ons t i tut i ona l l yva gue a nd ove rbr oa d. A l though the di s tr i c tc ourtpl a i nl y e rr e d i n de l e ga t i ng t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e rthe de c i s i on w he the rN a s h s houl d pa rt i c i pa t e i n am e nt a l he a l th pr ogr a m , s e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e a th , 4 1 9 F .3 d 1 3 1 2 , 1 3 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrin im p o s in g th e r e m a in in g tw o c o n d itio n s , b o th o f w h ic h w e r e s p e c if

ic a lly r e c om m e nde d by the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . W e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd i n pa rta nd a f f irm in p a rt. I . B AC KG RO UN D N a s h pl e a de d gui l ty t o one c ountof the f tof gove rnm e nt a l pr ope rtyf or f r audul e nt l y r e c e i vi ng $41, 416 i n S oc i a l S e c ur i tybe ne f i t s . N a s h ha d pr i or co n v i ct i o n s fo r p et i tl arcen y, ei g h ti n st an ces o f i ssu i n g w o rth l ess ch eck s, un autho ri ze d u se of pu bl i c a ss i st ance , and p et i ttheft . T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d N a s h t o e i ghtm onths of i m pr i s onm e nta nd tw o y e a r s of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . T he d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o o r d e r e d $ 4 1 ,4 1 6 in r e s titu tio n to b e p a id in m o n th lyin s ta llm e n ts3

of no tl es s than $ 90 per m on th. N as h d i d n otobj ec tt o the se nt ence . T he c ourti m pos e d f

ourt e e n s t a nda r d c ondi t i ons a nd f ours pe c i a l c ondi t i ons on N as h’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se . S peci al C on di t i on O ne st at es , “ A s dee m ed neces sary b y th e P r o b a tio n O f

f ic e r , th e d e f

e n d a n t s h a ll p a rtic ip a te in m e n ta l h e a lth c ouns e l i ng, w hi c h m a y i nc l ude i npa t i e nttr e a tm e nt . ” S pe c i a l C ondi t i on F our st at es , “ T he defendantshal l se cure pri or approv al fr om the prob at i on offi ce before op eni ng any c hecki ng , cr edi t , or debi tac coun t . ” S t andard C on di t i on T hi rt ee n st at es , “ A s di re ct ed by the prob at i on offi ce r, the defendantshal l no t i fythi rd part i es of ri sks thatm aybe occas i on ed by the defendant ’ s c ri m i nal re cord or personal hi st ory or c hara ct er i st i cs and shal l perm i tthe prob at i on offi ce r t o m ake s uch not i f i c a t i ons a nd t o c onf

i rm the de f

e nda nt ’ s c om pl i a nc e w i th s uc h not i f i c a t i on re qu i re m ent . ” N as h app ea l s these cond i t i on s of hersupervi se d rel ea se . I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w the t e rm s of as upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on, but w h e r e th e d e f

e n d a n t f a ils to o b je c t a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, w e r e v e r s e o n lyf o rp la in error. U ni t ed S t at es v. Z i nn , 32 1 F . 3d 10 84 , 10 88 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). W e r evi ew c ons t i tut i ona l i s s ue s de novo, butr e ve r s e onl yf orpl a i n e rr orw he r e the de f e nda nt f a i l s t o obj e c ta tthe di s tr i c tc ourt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W a l ke r , 56 F . 3d 1196, 1198 ( 1 9 9 5 ) .4 III. DI S CUS S I ON N a s h a r gue s tha tS pe c i a l C ondi t i on O ne , S pe c i a l C ondi t i on F our , a nd S t a nda r d C ondi t i on T hi rt e e n of he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e a r e a n i m pr ope rde l e ga t i on of j udi c i a l author i ty be c aus e the ydo notl i m i tthe di s c r e t i on of the pr oba t i on o f f ic e r . N a s h a ls o c o n te n d s th a t S ta n d a r d C o n d itio n T h irte e n is u n c o n s titu tio n a lly v ag u e b ecau se i td o es n o td efi n e w h en an d t o w h o m n o t i ce i s req u i red . W e d i scu ss e a c h a r g u m e n t in tu rn .

A . W h eth er th e D istri ct

C o u rt D eleg a ted

Ju d i ci a l Fu n ct i o n s? N a s h c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtpl a i nl ye rr e d be c aus e S pe c i a l C ondi t i on O ne, S peci al C on di t i on F ou r, and S t andard C on di t i on T hi rt ee n o f hersupervi se d r e l e a s e ar e i m pr ope rde l e ga t i ons of j udi c i a l f

unc t i on i n vi ol a t i on of

A rt i c l e I I I of the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on. S e e U . S . C ons t . , a rt . I I I . “ T o f i nd r e ve r s i bl e e rr or unde rthe pl a i n e rr ors t a nda r d, w e m us tc onc l ude tha t( 1) a n e rr oroc c urr e d, ( 2) the error w as pl ai n, and (3) the error a ff ec t ed subst ant i al ri gh t s. ” Z i nn , 32 1 F . 3d at 1 0 8 8 . I f th e s e th r e e c r ite r iaa r e m e t, w e m a yr e v e r s e f o rp la in e rr o rif

it “s e r io u s ly af fe ct [s ] the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . O la n o , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 0

– 3 2 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 1 7 7 0 , 1 7 7 6 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . T o de t e rm i ne i f

ac ourti m pr ope r l yde l e ga t e d the j udi c i a l author i tyof s e nt e nc i ng, w e ha ve dr a w n adi s t i nc t i on be tw e e n the de l e ga t i on t o apr oba t i on5

of f i c e rof “ am i ni s t e r i a l a c tors upports e rvi c e ” a nd “ the ul t i m a t e r e s pons i bi l i ty ” of i m pos i ng the s e nt e nc e . S e e B e rna r di ne , 237 F . 3d a t1283; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e a th, 419 F . 3d 1312, 1315 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a y l or , 338 F . 3d 1 2 8 0 , 1 2 8 3

– 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . Z in n , 3 2 1 F .3 d 1 0 8 4 , 1 0 9 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 03 ). A l tho ug h “ [a ] prob at i on offi ce r i s an ‘ arm of the court , ’ ” B ernardi ne, 23 7 F . 3d at12 83 (quo t i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. R ui z, 58 0 F . 2d 17 7, 17 8 (5th C i r. 19 78 )) , and “ i s s t atut ori l y m andat ed t o ‘ perf orm any . . . du ty thatthe courtm ay de s i gna t e , ’ ” i d. ( quot i ng 18 U . S . C . § 3603( 10) ) , A rt i c l e I I I c ourt s m a ynot de l e ga t e the “ ul t i m a t e r e s pons i bi l i ty ” of j udi c i a l f

unc t i ons t o pr oba t i on of f i c e r s , i d. (ci t i n g U n i t ed S t at es v . Jo h n so n , 4 8 F . 3 d 8 0 6 , 8 0 8

– 0 9 (4 th C i r. 1 9 9 5 )). B ecau se pr oba t i on of

f i c e r s “ pl a y avi t a l r ol e i n e f f e c tua t i ng the s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d by di s tr i c tc ourt s , ” T a y l or , 338 F . 3d a t1284, c ourt s m a yde l e ga t e dut i e s t o pr oba t i on of f i c e r s “ t o s upportj udi c i a l f unc t i ons , a s l ong a s aj udi c i a l of f i c e rr e t a i ns a nd e xe r c i s e s ul t i m a t e r e s pons i bi l i ty . ” I d. ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J ohns on, 48 F . 3d 806, 808–09 ( 4th C i r . 1995) ) . “ I ndi s put abl yunde rourc ons t i tut i ona l s y s t e m , the ri gh t. . . t o i m po se the pu ni shm entprov i ded b y l aw , i s j ud i ci al . ” E x p art e U ni t ed S t a t e s , 242 U . S . 27, 41– 42, 37 S . C t . 72, 74 ( 1916) . “ [ W ] he r e the c ourtm a ke s the d e te rm in a tio n o f

w h e th e rad e f

e n d a n t m u s t ab id e b yac o n d itio n , . . . it is pe rm i s s i bl e t o de l e ga t e t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e rthe de t a i l s of

w he r e a nd w he n the6

cond i t i on w i l l be sa t i sf

i ed. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S t ephens, 42 4 F . 3d 87 6, 88 0 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . W e h av e u p h el d co n d i t i o n s o f su p erv i sed rel ease th atu n eq u i v o cal l y i m p o se ar e qui r e m e nton the de f e nda nt , buts ubj e c tthe de f e nda ntt o the “ appr ova l ” or

“ di re ct i on ” of aprob at i on offi ce r. F or exam pl e, w e c on cl ud ed thatthe di stri ct c o u rt d id n o t p la in lye rrb y im p o s in g ac o n d itio n th a t s ta te d th e d e f e n d a n t “s h a ll part i ci pat e a s di re ct ed i n a prog ra m of m ent al heal th tre atm enti ncl ud i ng a s exual offe nd ertre atm entprog ra m approv ed by the prob at i on offi ce r. ” Z i nn , 32 1 F . 3d at 1 0 9 2 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . W e a ls o a f f irm e d , u n d e ra n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d , a c ondi t i on of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e tha tr e qui r e d the de f e nda nt“ t o pa rt i c i pa t e i n a m e nt a l he a l th pr ogr a m . . . appr ove d bythe pr oba t i on of f i c e r , a nd abi de bythe rul e s , r e qui r e m e nt s a nd c ondi t i ons of the tr e a tm e ntpr ogr a m , i nc l udi ng s ubm i tt i ng to p o ly g r ap h te s tin g .” T a y lo r , 3 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 3 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . I n b o th de c i s i ons , w e not e d tha tthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s “ ‘ e xpr e s s l ype rm i t [ ] ’ the di stri ctcourtt o requi re defe nd ant s t o ‘ part i ci pat e i n a m ent al heal th p rogram ap p r o v e d b y th e U n ite d S ta te s P r o b a tio n O f f ic e .’” I d . a t 1 2 8 4 ( q u o tin g U .S .S .G . § 5 B 1 .3 ( d ) ( 5 ) ) . W e a l so re ce nt l y c on cl ud ed thata di stri ctcourtpl ai nl y e rr s w hen i tdel egat es “to th e p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e rth e au th o r ityto d e c id e w h e th e rad e f e n d a n t w ill7

part i ci pat e i n a tre atm entprog ra m . ” H ea th, 41 9 F . 3d at13 15 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). In H e a th , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p o s e d ac o n d itio n th a t “[ t]h e d e f e n d a n t s h a ll p a rtic ip a te i f and as di re ct ed by the prob at i on offi ce i n such m ent al heal th p rogram s a s r e c o m m e n d e d b y ap s y c h ia tr is t o rp s y c h o lo g is t . . . .” I d . a t 1 3 1 4 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . W e s ta te d th a t th is c o n d itio n “d e le g a te d to th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rn o t o n ly th e a d m in is tr a tiv e s u p e rv is io n o f H e a th ’s p a rtic ip a tio n in th e m e n ta l h e a lth prog ra m , bu tal so the autho ri ty t o m ake the ul t i m at e dec i si on of w hether H ea th h ad to p a rtic ip a te a t a ll.” I d . a t 1 3 1 5 . B e c au s e “im p o s in g as e n te n c e o n ad e f e n d a n t is aj udi c i a l f

unc t i on” tha ta f

f e c t e d the t e rm s of

the s e nt e nc e a nd “ [ a ] vi ol a t i on of A rtic le I I I th r o u g h th e im p r o p e rd e le g a tio n o f aju d ic ia l f

u n c tio n ” “s e r io u s ly a f f e c t s th e f a i rn e s s , i n t e g r i ty , o rp u b l i c r e p u t a t i o n o f j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s , ” we c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d p la in lye rr e d . I d . W e app l y these pri nci pl es t o the chal l enged con di t i on s of N as h’ s s up ervi se d r e l e a s e . S pe c i a l C ondi t i on O ne of N a s h’ s s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e c ons t i tut e s pl a i n e rr or be c aus e i tde l e ga t e s the “ ul t i m a t e r e s pons i bi l i ty ” of s e nt e nc i ng t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e r . I ts t a t e s tha t“ [ a ] s de e m e d ne c e s s a rybythe P r oba t i on O f f i c e r , the de f e nda nts ha l l pa rt i c i pa t e i n m e nt a l he a l th c ouns e l i ng. ” “ [ T ] he s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s e xpr e s s l y pe rm i tthe c ourt , a nd onl ythe c ourt , t o i m pos e ‘ ac ondi t i on r e qui r i ng tha tthe de f

e nda ntpa rt i c i pa t e i n am e nt a l he a l th pr ogr a m . ’ ” H e a th, 4198

F . 3d at13 15 (c i t i ng U . S . S . G . § 5 B 1. 3(d)(5)). A l tho ug h the cond i t i on st at es that N a s h “ s ha l l ” pa rt i c i pa t e i n m e nt a l he a l th c ouns e l i ng, thi s or de ri s s ubj e c tt o the cond i t i on al ph ra se “ [a ] s dee m ed neces saryby the P robat i on O ff i ce r. ” I n o ther w or ds , w he the rN a s h “ s ha l l ” pa rt i c i pa t e i n m e nt a l he a l th c ouns e l i ng turns on the ju d g m e n t o f

th e p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e r , n o t th e c o u rt. L ik e th e c o n d itio n w e r e je c te d in H e a th , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a s d e le g a te d to th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rth e “u ltim a te r e s pons i bi l i ty ” of

w he the rN a s h m us tpa rt i c i pa t e i n m e nt a l he a l th c ouns e l i ng i n st ead o f th e “ m i n i st eri al fu n ct i o n ” o f h o w , w h en , an d w h ere th e d efen d an tm u st pa rt i c i pa t e . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpl a i nl ye rr e d w he n i ti m pos e d S pe c i a l C ondi t i on O n e . S e e H e a th , 4 1 9 F .3 da t 1 3 1 5 . S p e c ia l C o n d itio n F o u ra n d S ta n d a r d C o n d itio n T h irte e n , b yc o n tr a s t, i m pos e c l e a rdi r e c t i ve s on the de f e nda nts ubj e c tt o the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve s upe rvi s i on of a probat i on offi ce r. S peci al C on di t i on F ou r s t at es , “ T he defendantshal l se cure pr i orappr ova l f

r om the pr oba t i on of

f i c e be f or e ope ni ng a nyc he c ki ng, c r e di t , or d eb i tacco u n t . ” N ash i s req u i red t o seekp ri o r ap p ro v al o f th e p ro b at i o n o ffi ce as a c ondi t i on of

he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e ; the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d l e a ve s t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e ronl y the m i ni s t e r i a l appr ova l of the a c c ount s N a s h m a yope n. F urthe r , the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s e xpl i c i t l y r e c om m e nd “ ac ondi t i on pr ohi bi t i ng the d e f e n d a n t f r o m in c u rr in g n e w c r e d it c h a r g e s o ro p e n in g a d d itio n a l lin e s o f c r e d it9

w ith o u t ap p r o v a l o f

th e p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e r ” w h e r e r e s titu tio n is im p o s e d . U .S .S .G . § 5 D 1 .3 ( d ) ( 2 ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . Z in n , 3 2 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 2 ( f in d in g n o p la in e rr orw he r e ac ondi t i on of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e w a s “ c ons i s t e ntw i th the S e nt e nc i ng G u i d el i n es”). S p eci al C o n d i t i o n F o u r m an d at es th e d efen d an tt o ab i d e b y a c ondi t i on of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e s ubj e c tonl yt o the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve “ appr ova l ” of the p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e . S t andard C on di t i on T hi rt ee n l i kew i se do es no ti m prop er l y del egat e aj ud i ci al f unc t i on t o apr oba t i on of f i c e r . N a s h i s obl i ga t e d t o “ not i f ythi r d pa rt i e s of

r i s ks tha tm a y be oc c a s i one d by [ N a s h] ’ s c r i m i na l r e c or d orpe r s ona l hi s t oryor char ac t er i st i cs ” “ [a ] s di re ct ed by the prob at i on offi ce r. ” T he prob at i on offi ce r m ay “d ir e c t” w h e n , w h e r e , a n d to w h o m n o tic e m u s t b e g iv e n , b u t m a yn o t u n ila te r a lly d eci d e w h eth er N ash “ sh al l ” d o so atal l . T h e l an g u ag e o f th i s co n d i t i o n i s al so spec i fi ca l l y r ec om m ended b y the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a s at erm of supervi se d r e l e a s e . S e e U . S . S . G . § 5D 1. 3( d) ( 2) . S t a nda r d C ondi t i on T hi rt e e n di r e c t s the prob at i on offi ce r t o o vers ee the enforce m entof N as h’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se , bu tdo es notr e l e ga t e the “ ul t i m a t e r e s pons i bi l i ty ” of de t e rm i ni ng N a s h’ s s e nt e nc e t o the un fe tt er ed di sc re t i on of the prob at i on offi ce r. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otpl ai nl y e rr by i m pos i ng S pe c i a l C ondi t i on F oura nd S t a nda r d C ondi t i on T hi rt e e n.10

B . W he the rStandard C ondi t i on T hi r te e n I s V ague and O v e r br oad? N as h argues thatS t andard C on di t i on T hi rt ee n i s vague and o verbroad because i tdo es no tst at e the ri sks, thi rd part i es , or hi st ory and char ac t er i st i cs that w oul d othe rw i s e gui de apr oba t i on of f i c e ri n the e nf

or c e m e ntof

thi s c ondi t i on. T he S ent enci ng G ui del i nes perm i tthe courtt o i m po se cond i t i on s of s up ervi se d re l ea se thatar e “ re as on abl y r el at ed” t o the se nt enci ng fa ct ors, “ i nv ol ve no grea t er de pr i va t i on of

l i be rty tha n i s r e a s onabl yne c e s s a ryf orthe purpos e s s e tf

orth, ” a nd

“ a r e c ons i s t e ntw i th a ny pe rt i ne ntpol i c ys t a t e m e nt s i s s ue d bythe S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on. ” 18 U . S . C . § 3583( d) ; Z i nn, 321 F . 3d a t1089. C ondi t i ons of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e a r e notva gue a nd ove rbr oa d w he n the ya r e “ unde ni abl yr e l a t e d” t o the s e nt e nc i ng f

a c t or s . T a y l or , 338 F . 3d a t1285; s e e 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . T he f a c t or s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtm a y c ons i de rw he n i m pos i ng as e nt e nc e i nc l ude “ the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the hi s t orya nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the de f e nda nt ” a nd the ne e d “ t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om f urthe rc r i m e s of

the d e f e n d a n t.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) . S tan d ar d C o n d it io n N u m b erT h irteen is “u n d en iab ly re lated ” to N as h ’s c u rr e n t c o n v ic tio n , p r e v io u s c o n v ic tio n s , r e s titu tio n o b lig a tio n , a n d th e n e e d to p r o te c t th e p u b lic f

r o m N a s h ’s f

in a n c ia l f r au d . N a s h a d m itte d th a t s h e f r au d u le n tly r e c e iv e d S o c ia l S e c u r ityB e n e f its a n d h a s p r io rc o n v ic tio n s f o rc h e c kf

r au d , p e tit11

l a r c e ny , pe t i tthe f

t , a nd unauthor i z e d us e of publ i c a s s i s t a nc e . N a s h’ s c onvi c t i ons i nform the prob at i on offi ce r a s t o w hi ch part i es “ m aybe occas i on ed” t o b e harm ed by N a s h. N a s h’ s c r i m i na l hi s t orya nd r e s t i tut i on obl i ga t i on di r e c tthe pr oba t i on of f i c e rt o e nf

or c e thi s c ondi t i on of

he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e w i th avi e w t ow a r d the pr e ve nt i on of

f utur e f r aud a nd the f

ul f i l l m e ntof

he rr e s t i tut i on obl i ga t i ons . S e e i d. § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( C ) . I n the l i ghtof N a s h’ s pr e vi ous a nd c urr e ntc onvi c t i ons a nd the m a nda t e d r e s t i tut i on, S t a nda r d C ondi t i on N um be rT hi rt e e n i s ne i the rva gue nor ove rbr oa d. I V . CONCL US I ON B e c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtpl a i nl ye rr e d byi m pos i ng S pe c i a l C ondi t i on N um be rO ne , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. B e c aus e S pe c i a l C ondi t i on N um ber F ou r and S t andard C on di t i on N um ber T hi rt ee n o nl y del egat e m i ni st er i al dut i e s t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e ra nd S t a nda r d C ondi t i on N um be rT hi rt e e n i s not v a g u e o ro v e rb r o a d , w e a f f i rm. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D I N P AR T , AN D A F F I RME D I N P AR T .