IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40274

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GARY EUGENE ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-235-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary Eugene Robinson pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex 

offender. A special condition of the supervised release that followed his prison 

term prohibited him from having contact with children “unless supervised by 

an adult approved by the probation officer.” After the district court found that 

he violated this and three other conditions, it revoked his supervised release 

and sentenced Robinson to prison followed by five more years of supervised 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40274 Document: 00513765489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/18/2016
No. 16-40274

2

release. Robinson now appeals, challenging only the district court’s decision to 

reimpose the special condition of his supervised release limiting contact with 

children.

Because Robinson did not argue in the district court that delegation to 

the probation officer of the authority to determine a suitable chaperone violates 

Article III of the Constitution, we review his first challenge for plain error. See 

United States v. Bishop, 603 F.3d 279, 280 (5th Cir. 2010); see also United 

States v. Garcia-Perez, 779 F.3d 278, 281-82 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Objections 

supported below by a given argument cannot preserve a completely different 

argument on appeal.”). We thus only have discretion to correct any error if 

Robinson shows that the error is obvious, affected his substantial rights, and 

seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the district court proceedings. 

United States v. Bourgeois, 423 F.3d 501, 506 (5th Cir. 2005).

“The imposition of a sentence, including the terms and conditions of 

supervised release, is a core judicial function that cannot be delegated.” United 

States v. Franklin, ___ F.3d ____, No. 15-20622, 2016 WL 5417371, *2 (5th Cir. 

September 28, 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For 

example, a district court cannot delegate the “authority to decide whether a 

defendant will participate in a treatment program.” Id. It can, however,

delegate to a probation officer the authority to decide “the details of a condition 

of supervised release.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We 

thus found no plain error when a district court delegated to a probation officer 

the authority “to determine a defendant’s ability to pay for drug treatment.” 

Bishop, 603 F.3d at 282.

We also see no plain error in the district court having the probation 

officer approve any adult chaperones that would allow Robinson to have 

contact with children. The district judge made the determination to prohibit 

 Case: 16-40274 Document: 00513765489 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/18/2016
No. 16-40274

3

contact with children. The judge then softened that prohibition by allowing 

such contact when Robinson is supervised by an adult approved by the 

probation officer. The probation officer’s role in approving such adults looks 

more like a detail of the supervised release condition. Robinson certainly has 

pointed to no authority showing an obvious error in having the probation 

officer perform this limited approval role. 

Robinson next argues that the standard adopted by the probation officer 

creates a greater than necessary deprivation of his liberty and violated his 

right to freedom of association. Because Robinson objected on these grounds 

in the district court, we review whether imposition of the special condition of 

supervise release was an abuse of the district court’s discretion. See United 

States v. Duke, 778 F.3d 392, 398 (5th Cir. 2015). “This court has routinely 

upheld conditions limiting a defendant’s ability to associate with minors,”

particularly when they are limited in scope and duration. Id. at 401, 403. 

Restricting Robinson from having contact with children “except under the 

supervision of another adult designated . . . by the probation officer, is not 

overly broad because the restriction provides no greater deprivation of liberty 

than is necessary to protect . . . minors.” Rodriguez, 558 F.3d at 418.

The district court did not abuse its discretion or plainly err in imposing 

the special condition of supervised release. Duke, 778 F.3d at 398; Bishop, 603

F.3d at 281. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40274 Document: 00513765489 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/18/2016