Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Joe LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-10
Citations: 177 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 05-50484
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Randy Joe LEWIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Randy Joe LEWIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-50484.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2006.
Filed April 10, 2006.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Andrew Stolper, Esq., USSA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Randy Joe Lewis appeals from the imposition of two special conditions of his supervised release after pleading guilty to two counts of 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.
Lewis contends that the condition that he abstain from alcohol is improper because it is not reasonably related to his offense, history, or personal characteristics. This condition is not improper. See United States v. Carter, 159 F.3d 397, 401 (9th Cir.1998).
Lewis also contends that the condition that requires him to pay the cost of his drug and alcohol treatment as directed by his probation officer constitutes an improper delegation of the district court's authority. This condition is not an improper delegation of the district court's authority. See United States v. Dupas, 419 F.3d 916, 922-24 (9th Cir.2005).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.