IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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 sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for possession of a chemical, product, or material to

manufacture methamphetamine. 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 submit to an evaluation for substance abuse and to a

narcotics addiction treatment program if the probation officer deemed such

treatment necessary, that he submit to a mental health evaluation and to a

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 25, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

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

mental health program if the probation officer deemed it necessary, that he

participate in a cognitive behavioral treatment program if the probation officer

deemed it necessary, and that he participate in workforce development programs

and services if deemed necessary by the probation officer.

Warren first argues that 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, and 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 Court decision. United

States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5th Cir. 2002).

Additionally, Warren argues that the district courtimposed, in the written

judgment but not in the oral judgment, a special condition permitting 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 special 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 supervised person . . . 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