### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-50722 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v. CHRISTOPHER SHANE WARREN, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:11-CR-44-1

Before DENNIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Christopher Shane Warren appeals the s e n t ence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession o f a c h e mical, product, or material to manufacture methamphetamin e . See 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6) & (d)(2). As standard conditions of Warren’s three-year term of supervised release, the district court ordered that Warren s ub m i t t o an evaluation for substance abuse and to a narcotics addiction treatment program if the probation offi cer deemed such treatment necessary, that he s ub m i t to a mental health evaluation and to a U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May25 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50722 Document: 00511867579 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2012No. 11-50722

mental health program if the probati o n o f f i c e r deemed it necessary, that he participate in a cognitive behavioral treatment program if the probation officer de e m e d it n e c essary, and that he participate in workforce developm e nt p ro gr a m s and services if deemed necessary by the probation officer. Warren first argue s t hat the district court improperly delegated to the probation officer authority to determine , while Warren was on supervised release, whether narcotics addiction treatment, mental health treatment, cognitive behavioral treatment, a n d workforce participation services were necessary. He concedes that the imposition of such conditions is not plain error under the precedent of this circuit, see United States v. Bishop , 603 F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 2010), but contends that this court should reconsider the issue. One panel of this court may not overrule the decision of a prior panel in the absence of en banc consideration or a superseding Supreme Cour t decision. United States v. Lipscomb , 299 F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5 th Cir. 2002). Additionally, Warren argues that the district court i m p o s e d , in the written judgment but not in the oral judgment, a special condition permi t t i n g certain searches of Warren and his property by the probation officer. He contends that the written judgment must be amended to reflect the lack of such a condition in the oral judgment. The spec i al conditions listed in the written judgment are prefaced with the statement that they apply only if “[t]he Court

. . . applied [the special conditions] to the supervi s e d p e r son . . . at the time of sentencing.” As the district court did not specifically state that any of these conditions applied, the challenged condition does not apply to Warren. As Warren has failed to show any plain error with respect to the conditions of his supervised release, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-50722 Document: 00511867579 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2012