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 Luna violated his supervised release and the district 

court issued a warrant for his arrest. Law enforcement arrested Defendant on state drug 

charges in March 2019. While in state custody, Defendant wrote a letter to the district 

court requesting transfer to federal custody and enrollment in an in-patient substance abuse 

* After examining the briefs and appellate 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 judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive 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 Court
2 

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 supervised 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 Defendant lodged no objection. Defendant timely 

appealed. 

Because Defendant did not object to the condition, we review for plain error. 

United States v. Martinez-Torres, 795 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2015). Applying this 

standard, we vacate and remand for resentencing. 

To meet our rigorous plain error standard, Defendant must show: “(1) error, (2) 

that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 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 imposing 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 must justify the condition with compelling 

circumstances.’” United States v. Malone, 937 F.3d 1325, 1327 (10th Cir. 2019) 

(quoting United States v. Burns, 775 F.3d 1221, 1223 (10th Cir. 2014)). “[A] 

compelled physical intrusion beneath [an individual’s] skin and into his veins to obtain 
3 

a sample of his blood” is an “invasion of bodily integrity [that] implicates an 

individual's ‘most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.’” Missouri v. 

McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 148 (2013) (quoting Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 760 

(1985)). 

Here, the record does not support the district court’s decision to impose the 

blood testing requirement. The district court imposed the special condition requiring 

blood testing, but failed to justify it as required by Malone. As the parties agree, the 

condition affected the fairness and integrity of the proceedings because it could be 

more severe than what the district court 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 district 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