Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Valane Marie ACEVEDO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-12
Citations: 157 F. App'x 713
Docket Number: No. 05-40373
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Valane Marie ACEVEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 713–713

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Valane Marie ACEVEDO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40373.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 12, 2005.
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, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Valane Marie Acevedo appeals from a guilty-plea conviction for transporting an unlawful alien "within the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(A)(ii), (v)(II), (B)(ii). Acevedo argues that the district court impermissibly delegated its authority to the probation officer to determine whether and to what extent Acevedo should participate in a drug treatment program.
Acevedo concedes that she did not raise an objection to this condition of supervised release; therefore the issue is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 852 n. 3 (5th Cir.2003). Acevedo has failed to provide binding authority demonstrating that the delegation was obvious error that affected her substantial rights. Accordingly, she cannot demonstrate the requisite elements of plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 164 (5th Cir.l994)(en banc).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.