Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge Armando LEDEZMA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-30
Citations: 333 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 08-50377
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jorge Armando LEDEZMA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 285–285

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jorge Armando LEDEZMA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-50377.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Sept. 30, 2009.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Office of The U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Ann Luotto Wolf, Esquire, Office of The U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Elizabeth Newman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Armando Ledezma appeals from a special condition of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ledezma contends that Special Condition 4, which authorizes the probation officer to determine whether he must participate in a residential drug treatment program, involves an impermissible delegation of judicial authority. The district court did not plainly err because Special Condition 4 permits the probation officer to place Ledezma in an inpatient program only if he and his counsel consent. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); cf. United States v. Esparza, 552 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.