United States v. Paulino

83 F. App'x 337
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided December 24, 2003·No. No. 02-2591·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paulino argues that the district court’s imposition of a condition of supervised release requiring him to “submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and thereafter as required by the U.S. Probation Officer” constitutes an impermissible delegation of sentencing authority. Paulino is correct. In United States v. Melendez-Santana, No. 01-2386 & No. 01-2397, we recently vacated a nearly identical condition on delegation grounds, while noting that it would be permissible for the court to establish the range of drug tests to be performed, with probation officers exercising discretion on the exact number of drug tests to be performed within that range. We must VACATE the drug testing condition in the written sentencing order and REMAND to the district court for reconsideration of the drug testing requirement. That reconsideration must be done in a manner consistent with the Defendant’s right to be present at sentencing.

SO ORDERED.

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

United States v. Paulino, 83 F. App'x 337 (1st Cir. 2003).

83 F. App'x 337 (United States v. Paulino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.