United States v. Calderon-Monteczuma

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 5, 2003
• Docket: 01-21183
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 5, 2003 ____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III No. 01-21183 Clerk Summary Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SERGIO CALDERON-MONTECZUMA,

Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-01-CR-385-ALL) _________________________________________________________________

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sergio Calderon-Monteczuma appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following

deportation. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). He contends that, in

the special conditions of supervised release, the district court

impermissibly delegated its authority by ordering the probation

office to determine: (1) the extent of Calderon’s required

participation in drug and/or alcohol treatment programs; and (2)

the drug-detection techniques to which Calderon must submit.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Calderon did not object, however, to the special conditions.

“The plain error doctrine requires parties to raise objections at

procedurally opportune junctures as early in the judicial process

as possible.” United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 500 U.S. 924 (1991). At sentencing, Calderon had

ample opportunity to lodge an objection to the special conditions.

Accordingly, our review is limited to plain error. E.g., United

States v. Vega, 324 F.3d 798, 801 n.3 (5th Cir. 2003); Lopez, 923

F.2d at 50.

Calderon has failed to provide binding authority demonstrating

that the delegation was a clear or obvious error. Therefore,

Calderon has not demonstrated this required element for reversible

plain error. See Vega, 324 F.3d at 801 n.3.

AFFIRMED