United States v. Paulino
United States v. Paulino
Opinion
Not for publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
No. 02-2591
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
DELCIO ANTONIO PAULINO,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. Pérez-Giménez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella and Lipez, Circuit Judges, and Schwarzer,* Senior District Judge.
Maria Soledad Ramirez Becerra for appellant. H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, Nelson Pérez-Sosa and Sonia I. Torres-Pabón, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Appellee.
December 24, 2003
*Of the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 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 US Probation
Officer" constitutes an impermissible delegation of sentencing
authority. Paulino is correct. In United States v. Meléndez-
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.
-2-
Reference
- Status
- Published