UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. RUBEN LEOPOLDO DE LUNA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 20-1017 (D.C. No. 1:18-CR-00003-RM-1) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HARTZ , BALDOCK , and CARSON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Defendant Ruben Leopoldo De L una violated his supervised release and the district court issued a warrant for his arrest. Law enforcement arrested De fendant on state drug charges in March 2019. While in state custody, Defendant wr ote a letter to the district court requesting transfer to federal custody and enrollment in an in-patient substance abuse

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgme nt is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### September 30, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 and mental health program. He informed the court he had contacted several providers seeking treatment and was taking his prescribed psychiatric medication. During his revocation and re -sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to eighteen months of imprisonment and three years of supe rvised release. In sentencing Defendant, the district court imposed several special conditions of his supervised released, including mandatory random blood tests to ensure Defendant remained medication compliant. It did not, however, make a particularized finding justifying this special condition and Defenda nt lodged no objectio n. Defendant timely appealed. Because Defendant did not object to the condition, we review for plain error. United States v. Martinez-Torre s, 795 F.3d 1233, 12 36 (10th Cir. 2015). Applying this standard, we vacate and re mand for resentencing. To meet our rigorous plain error standard , Defendant must show : “(1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affe cts substantial right s, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judi cial proceedings.” Id. (quoting United States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686, 691-92 (10th Cir. 2011)). Both parties agree the district court plainly erred by impos ing random blood tests as a special condition without justification. “‘[W]hen a court imposes a special condition that invades a fundamental right or liberty interest, the court mu st justify the condition with compelling circumstances.’” United States v. Mal one, 937 F.3d 1325, 13 27 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Burns, 775 F. 3d 1221, 1223 (10th Ci r. 2014)). “[A] compelled physical intrusion be neath [an individual’s] skin and into his veins to obtain3 a sample of his blood” is an “invasion of bodily integr ity [that] implicates an individual's ‘most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.’” Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 14 8 (2013) (quoting Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 760 (1985)). Here, the record does not support the di strict court’s decision to impose the blood testing requirement. The district court imposed the special condition requiring blood testing, but faile d to justify it as required by Mal one. As the part ies agree, the condition affected the fairness and integrity of the pro ceedings because it could be more severe than what the district cour t would have imposed had it fulfilled its obligation to justify the special condition. See Burns, 775 F.3d at 1224-25 (citing United States v. Doyle, 711 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2013)). For these reasons, we VACATE the dist rict court’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing in a manner consistent with this order and judgment.

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge