United States v. Grubert

339 F. App'x 406
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 29, 2009
Docket08-41030
StatusUnpublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 339 F. App'x 406 (United States v. Grubert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Grubert, 339 F. App'x 406 (5th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Michael T. Grubert pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to a 90-month term of imprisonment and to a 10-year period of supervised release. As a special condition of his supervision, Grubert was ordered to “participate in a mental health program as deemed necessary and approved by the probation officer.”

Grubert argues that the district court committed plain error by delegating to the probation officer the authority to decide whether he should undergo mental health treatment. Citing United States v. Albro, 32 F.3d 173, 174 (5th Cir.1994), he argues that the district court impermissibly delegated its Article III power to impose conditions of supervised release by giving the probation officer discretion to decide whether he should participate in a mental health program.

*407 To show plain error, Grubert must show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d 324, 332 (5th Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 962, 173 L.Ed.2d 153 (2009). Our precedents do not plainly require the result Grubert urges. See United States v. Vega, 332 F.3d 849, 851-54 (5th Cir.2003); United States v. Warden, 291 F.3d 363, 365-66 (5th Cir.2002). The judgment is

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5m Cm. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Daniel Lomas, III
643 F. App'x 319 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Bishop
603 F.3d 279 (Fifth Circuit, 2010)
Grubert v. United States
176 L. Ed. 2d 369 (Supreme Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
339 F. App'x 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-grubert-ca5-2009.