### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20172

U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f –A pp el l ee , v. L IS A D E N IS E B IS H O P , D efen d a n t–A p p ell a n t
.

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ct of T exas

B ef ore B A R K S D A L E , D E N N IS, an d O W E N , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P R ISC ILL A R

. O W E N , C i rcui t Ju dg e: L i sa D en i se B i shop app eal s t h e i m posi t i on of a s p eci al condit i on on h er s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . F o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s , w e a f f i r m. I B i shop pl ed gu i l t y t o aggrav ated i den t i t y t h ef t an d f rau d in conn ect i on
w i t h acces s devi ces an d w as sentenc e d t o ser ve 48 m on t h s i n pri son an d three years of sup e rv i sed rel ease. A s a speci al condit i on of her sup ervi sed rel ease, B ish o p w as ordered t o “ pa rt i ci pa t e i n a m en t al hea l t h program as deem ed
nec es sa r y and approv ed by t he pr obat i on o f f i c er . ” Bi sho p appeal s, ar gui ng t hat t h e di st ri ct court ju d ge u n l aw f u l l y an d u n consti t u t i on al l y del egated h er United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Apr il 7, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-20172 Document: 00511073735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 20172

Uni ted States v. Vega , 3 3 2 F .3 d 8 4 9 , 8 5 2 n .3 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 1 Unit ed St ate s v. Roj as-Gut ierrez , 5 1 0F .3 d 5 4 5 , 5 4 8( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). 2 Id

. 3 See Joh nson v. Unit ed St ate s , 52 0 U .S. 46 1, 4 67 (199 7) (“ [A] new rulefor the condu ct 4 of crimin al prosecu tion s is to b e a pplie dretroac tiv elyto allca ses . . . pen ding ondir ect review . . . with no exceptio n for cases in which thenew rul e co nstitu tes a‘cl ear break’ with th e pa st .” ) (i n te rn a l qu ot a ti on s a n d citati ono mi tt ed).

Unit ed St ate s v. Olano , 5 0 7U .S

. 7 2 5 , 7 3 4( 1 9 9 3 ). 5 See, e.g. , Uni ted States v. Hea th , 41 9 F. 3d 1 312 , 13 15 (11thC ir. 2 005 ) (fin ding th at 6 dele gating

to the probationoffi ce the authority to de cide wheth er adefe ndant wil l partici pate inat re a tm ent pr ogra m i s avio lati ono f Art ic leI I I); see a lso Unit ed St ate s v. Pet erson , 24 8 F .3d 2 s t at ut o r y and Ar t i c l e I I I aut ho r i t y t o de t e r m i ne s e nt e nc i ng c o ndi t i o ns t o a no nj u di ci al of

f i cer. II B e c a u s e B is h o p d id n o t o b je c t a t s e n te n c in g , th is co u r t r e v ie w s fo r p la in
error onl y. U n der t h e pl ai n error st an da rd of revi ew , revers al i s not requ i red 1 unl e s s t he r e i s ( 1) a n e r r o r ; ( 2) t hat i s c l e ar o r o bv i o us ; a nd ( 3) t hat a f fe c t s t he d efen d a n t’ s su b stan ti a l ri gh ts. E ve n the n , w e reta i n discretion w h eth er to 2
c or r ec t t he e r r or , and w i l l do so onl y i f i t “ se r i ous l y af fec t s t he fai r nes s, i nt egr i t y, o r pub l i c r e put at i o n o f j udi c i alpr o c e e di n g s .” 3

III W e d e t e r m i n e wh e t h e r a n a l l e g e d e r r o r i s p l a i n b y r e fe r e n c e t o e x i s t i ng l aw at t h e t i m e of ap pea l

. A n error i s n ot pl ai n “ u n l ess t h e error i s c l ear un der 4
c ur r e nt l aw. ” The r e a r e no pub l i s he d de c i s i o ns i n t hi s Ci r c ui t t hat a ddr e s s t he 5 statu tory an d con sti tu ti on a l l i m i ts on a d i stri ct cou rt’ s au th ority to de l eg a te to a proba t i on of

f i cer t h e determ i n ati on of w h et h er an d t o w h at ext en t a convi ct ed defenda n t on su pervi sed rel ease m u st parti ci pa t e i n coun sel i n g. A l t h ou gh ot h er c i r c ui t c o ur t s hav e f

o und i m pr o pe r de l e ga t i o n i n a nal o go us c i r c um s t anc e s o n de
n ovo revi ew , t h e qu est i on rem ai n s an op en one i n t h e F i f t h C i rcui t , a n d B i shop 6 Case: 09-20172 Document: 00511073735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 20172

79 , 8 5 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “ I f [t h e d e f e n d a n t] i s r e qu i r e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a m e n t a lh eal th in t erv enti on only if directe d to do so byh is probationoffi cer, thenthis spec ialcon ditio n co n st it u te s a ni mp er mi ssib led el eg a ti ono f j u di ci a l a u th orityt o th e pr ob a ti ono ff ic er .” ); Unit ed St ate s v. Pru den , 39 8 F .3d 2 41, 251 (3d Cir. 2 005 ) (expressin g agr ee m ent with Pet erson); U n i t e d S t ate s v. Allen , 3 1 2 F .3 d 5 1 2 , 5 1 6( 1 stC ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (s a me); Unit ed St ate s v. Sin es , 30 3 F.3 d 79 3, 7 99 (7thC ir. 2 002 ) (“[A ] district court ... mu st itse lf i mp ose the actu al condition re qu irin gp a rt ic ip a ti oni nase xo ff en de r tr eatm ent pr ogra m.” ); Unit ed St ate s v. Ken t , 20 9 F .3d 107 3, 1 079(8th Cir. 2 000) (fin ding “th at the lower court i mproperly dele gated aj udic ial func tionto [the defen dant ’s] probationoffi cer when it all owed th e officer to de termin e whe ther [th e de fe n da n t] wo u ldu n de rgo co u n se li n g”)

. Unit ed St ate s v. Cast ro , 1 6 6F .3 d 7 2 8 , 732 (5t h Cir . 19 9 9 ); se e alsoU n it ed S t at esv . 7 Vega , 33 2 F .3d 8 49, 85 2 n.3 (5thC ir. 2 003 ) (fin ding any errorcould n ot b e pl ainor obviou s wh ent h e Fif

thC ircu ith a d n otp re vio u slya ddre sse d th e is su e b ef or e th e co u rt). See, e.g. , Unit ed St ate s v. De Lo s Sant os , 332 F. App’x 993(5th Cir. 2 009) (ho ldin g tha t 8 it was no t pl ainerr or t o de leg ate wheth er and to what extentth e de fenda nt shou ld partici pate inc ou n se li n g); Unit ed S t at esv . Dav is , 3 0 6F

. App ’x8 5 1 ( 5thC ir

. 2 0 0 9 ); Un it ed S t at esv . Gruber t , 3 3 9F

. App ’x4 0 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 9 ); Un ited S t at esv . Mu n g ia , 297 F. App’x 314 (5thC ir. 2 0 0 8); Unit ed St ate s v. Acevedo , 1 5 7F

. App ’x7 1 3 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). 3 2 F .3 d 1 7 3 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 4). 9 3 h a s fa ile d to sh ow th a t th e dist ri ct cou rt’ s erro r, i f a n y, w a s p l a i n . In d ee d , in 7
a s e r i e s o f

r e c e nt u np ub l i s he d o p i ni o ns , t hi s c i r c ui t h a s c o ns i s t e nt l y h e l d t hat
s u c h j u d i c i a l d e l e g a t i o n s o f a u t h o r i t y r e g a r d i n g c o u n s e l i n g d o n o t r i s e t o t he l evel of pl ai n err or. 8 B i s ho p r e l i e s pr i m ar i l y upo n o ur de c i s i o n i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. A l bro to sup port h er posi t i on t h at t h e di st ri ct court j u dg e pl ai n l y erred by d el egati n g h er a u th ority to de term i n e sp ecial con d i ti on s of rel ea se to a p r o b a tio n off i cer. In 9 t hat c as e, t he def

endant w as c onvi c t ed o f bank f r aud an d o rd er ed t o pay
r e s t i t ut i o n. Al t ho ugh t he di s t r i c t j udg e de t e r m i ne d t he a m o unt t o b e pa i d, he d elega ted th e “ m a n n er of p a ym en t” to a p rob a ti on off i cer. T h i s cou rt ag ree d w i th t h e c o nvi c t e d de fe nda nt t hat “ ‘ t he am o unt s t o be pa i d and t he m anner of paym ent s houl d be r ec i t ed i n t he [ se nt enc i ng] or der , r at her t han Case: 09-20172 Document: 00511073735 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/07/2010N o. 09- 20172

I d

. at 174 (quo ting Unit ed St ate s v. Mancu so , 4 4 4F .2 d 6 9 1 , 6 9 5 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 7 1 ))

. 10 Id

. at17 4-75
. 11 2 9 1 F .3 d 3 6 3 , 3 6 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). 12 I d

. at 365 -66. 13 3 3 2 F .3 d 8 4 9 , 8 5 2 n .3 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). 14 4 de l e ga t [ e d]

. . . t o t he pr o ba t i o n o f f i c e r . ’ ” T h e cou rt f o und pl ai n e r r o r a nd 10
r e ve r s e d. 11 Bi s ho p c o nc e de s , howev e r , t hat t hi s c o ur t ha s s i nc e di s t i ngu i s he d A l bro in
c as e s ad dr e s s i ng dr ug t r e at m e nt
. I n Un i t ed S t ate s v. W ard en , fo r e x a m p le , th is court h el d that i t w as n ot pl ai n error t o al l ow a probati on of f i cer t o deter m i n e a d efen d a n t’ s a b i l i ty to p a y f or dru g t rea tm en t. T h i s cou rt n ot e d tha t A l bro 12 concerned “ rest i t u t i on pa ym en t s, ” n ot t h e cost s of dru g t reat m en t
. Likew i se, 13 i n Uni t e d St a t e s v . Vega , w e n o te d th a t a n y e r r o r b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in d e le g a t in g a u th o rity to a p ro b a tion office r to d e te rm in e th e len g th of a defenda n t ' s drug treat m en t w as not pl ai n or obviou s b e ca u se “ w e ha ve n ot p r e v io u s ly a d d r e s s e d th is is s u e .” 14 O u r prec eden t s do not pl ai n l y requ i re t h e res u l t B i shop urges. * * * A ccor di n gl y, f

or t h e reasons di scussed a b o v e , w e A F F IR M t h e di st ri ct
cou rt’ s j u d gm en t. Case: 09-20172 Document: 00511073735 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/07/2010