FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 30, 2020
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 20-1017
(D.C. No. 1:18-CR-00003-RM-1)
RUBEN LEOPOLDO DE LUNA, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Defendant Ruben Leopoldo De Luna violated his supervised release and the district
court issued a warrant for his arrest. Law enforcement arrested Defendant on state drug
charges in March 2019. While in state custody, Defendant wrote a letter to the district
court requesting transfer to federal custody and enrollment in an in-patient substance abuse
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
and mental health program. He informed the court he had contacted several providers
seeking treatment and was taking his prescribed psychiatric medication.
During his revocation and re-sentencing hearing, the district court sentenced
Defendant to eighteen months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. In
sentencing Defendant, the district court imposed several special conditions of his
supervised released, including mandatory random blood tests to ensure Defendant
remained medication compliant. It did not, however, make a particularized finding
justifying this special condition and Defendant lodged no objection. Defendant timely
appealed.
Because Defendant did not object to the condition, we review for plain error.
United States v. Martinez-Torres, 795 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2015). Applying this
standard, we vacate and remand for resentencing.
To meet our rigorous plain error standard, Defendant must show: “(1) error, (2)
that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quoting United
States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686, 691-92 (10th Cir. 2011)). Both parties agree the district
court plainly erred by imposing random blood tests as a special condition without
justification. “‘[W]hen a court imposes a special condition that invades a fundamental
right or liberty interest, the court must justify the condition with compelling
circumstances.’” United States v. Malone, 937 F.3d 1325, 1327 (10th Cir. 2019)
(quoting United States v. Burns, 775 F.3d 1221, 1223 (10th Cir. 2014)). “[A]
compelled physical intrusion beneath [an individual’s] skin and into his veins to obtain
2
a sample of his blood” is an “invasion of bodily integrity [that] implicates an
individual's ‘most personal and deep-rooted expectations of privacy.’” Missouri v.
McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 148 (2013) (quoting Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 760
(1985)).
Here, the record does not support the district court’s decision to impose the
blood testing requirement. The district court imposed the special condition requiring
blood testing, but failed to justify it as required by Malone. As the parties agree, the
condition affected the fairness and integrity of the proceedings because it could be
more severe than what the district court would have imposed had it fulfilled its
obligation to justify the special condition. See Burns, 775 F.3d at 1224-25 (citing
United States v. Doyle, 711 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2013)).
For these reasons, we VACATE the district court’s sentence and REMAND for
resentencing in a manner consistent with this order and judgment.
Entered for the Court
Joel M. Carson III
Circuit Judge
3