Case: 20-40669 Document: 00515913659 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 24, 2021
No. 20-40669 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Javier Mena Martinez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CR-1675-1
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Javier Mena Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following his
conviction of transporting an illegal alien. He argues that the district court
impermissibly delegated the decision to place him in an inpatient or
outpatient drug treatment program to the probation officer.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-40669 Document: 00515913659 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2021
No. 20-40669
Mena Martinez concedes plain error review applies, because he did
not raise his objection at sentencing when he had an opportunity to do so. See
United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551, 559 (5th Cir.), (en banc), cert. denied,
141 S. Ct. 825 (2020). Under the plain error standard, Mena Martinez must
show an error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights.
See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
“The imposition of a sentence, including the terms and conditions of
supervised release, is a core judicial function that cannot be delegated.”
United States v. Franklin, 838 F.3d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). It is not permissible for a district
court to delegate the decision of “whether a defendant will participate in a
treatment program,” but “a district court may properly delegate to a
probation officer decisions as to the details of a condition of supervised
release.” Sealed Appellee v. Sealed Appellant, 937 F.3d 392, 400 (5th Cir.
2019) (internal quotation marks, emphasis, and citations omitted).
Recently, this court simultaneously issued United States v. Martinez,
987 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2021), and United States v. Medel-Guadalupe, 987 F.3d
424 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ S. Ct. ___, No. 20-7483, 2021 WL 1520967
(U.S. April 19, 2021), which addressed the same wording of imposed special
conditions of supervised release that Mena Martinez challenges here. In light
of these decisions, we conclude that the district court impermissibly
delegated authority to determine whether Mena Martinez should participate
in inpatient or outpatient treatment and that this constitutes reversible plain
error. See Martinez, 987 F.3d at 436; United States v. Barber, 865 F.3d 837,
840 (5th Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, the substance abuse treatment condition is VACATED
and the matter is REMANDED to the district court.
2