Opinion ID: 201542
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Drug testing and treatment release condition

Text: 17 Figuereo also contends for the first time on appeal that the district court impermissibly delegated authority to the probation officer to decide how many drug tests to administer and whether to order him to attend a drug treatment program if he failed a drug test while on supervised release. This delegation constitutes plain error under United States v. Meléndez-Santana, 353 F.3d 93 (1st Cir.2003), in which we held that a sentencing court may not ... vest the probation officer with the discretion to order an unlimited number of drug tests and must determine whether the defendant has to undergo drug treatment either at the time of sentencing, or later in response to a motion by the probation officer. Id. at 101-03 (footnote omitted). The government concedes plain error and agrees that this court should remand for limited resentencing on this basis. We therefore remand for an adjustment of the drug testing and treatment portion of the sentence. 7 See United States v. Vega, 398 F.3d 149, 154 (1st Cir.2005) (vacating the defendant's sentence only to the extent it delegates the terms of his drug testing and treatment during the period of his supervised release, and remand [ing] for resentencing on this sole issue). The remainder of Figuereo's sentence is affirmed. 18 So ordered.