Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Anthony RYLANDER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-13
Citations: 269 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 07-20653
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Anthony RYLANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 269
Pages: 524–525

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Anthony RYLANDER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-20653
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 13, 2008.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Edward Anthony Rylander challenges his guilty plea conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He first argues that this court should reconsider its jurisprudence regarding the statute's constitutionality in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000). Rylander's arguments are foreclosed by this court's precedent. See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001).
Rylander also challenges as plainly erroneous the district court's imposition of a special condition of his supervised release that he "not ingest any artificial stimulants," contending that the condition is vague and overbroad. The Government concedes the error and requests that the special condition be vacated.
We agree that the district court's imposition of this special condition, which could be interpreted to prohibit Rylander's use of a broad range of legal substances, including soft drinks, cough syrup, and tobacco, was plain error. The district court made no findings regarding Rylander's use of "artificial stimulants." The condition is unrelated to his firearms-possession offense and involves a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to deter criminal conduct and protect the public. See United States v. Ferguson, 369 F.3d 847, 853-54 (5th Cir.2004). And although Rylander has a history of drug possession, the district court adequately addressed the concerns this history raises by prohibiting him from possessing or using controlled substances and requiring him to submit to periodic drug tests during the term of his supervised release.
Accordingly, the special condition of supervised release that Rylander not ingest any artificial stimulants is VACATED. See United States v. Hernandez-Guevara, 162 F.3d 863, 878 (5th Cir.1998) ("[W]e need not waste judicial resources by remanding for what [ ] would be a rote re-sentencing."). The district court's judgment is otherwise AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.