IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10660
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KENNETH RAY WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
- - - - - - - - - -
June 5, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Ray Wright appeals his conviction for bank robbery and
using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence.
He contends, for the first time on appeal, that the district court
erred by intervening in the trial proceedings to such an extent
that it assumed the role of the prosecution; and by refusing to
allow him to present surrebuttal evidence to refute testimony
regarding his reputation for untruthfulness presented by government
rebuttal witnesses. Finally, Wright contends that the imposition
of mandatory drug testing as a condition of his supervised release
violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and was an abuse of
the district court's discretion.
A thorough review of the entire trial transcript reveals that
questioning by the district court, although considerably more
extensive than normal, did not constitute plain error. See United
States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc),
cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).
It is not clear that Wright was denied surrebuttal. Nor did
the district court abuse its discretion if it did deny Wright
surrebuttal because Wright "failed to proffer to the district court
the substance of his surrebuttal testimony." United States v.
Alford, 999 F.2d 818, 821 (5th Cir. 1993).
The requirement of drug testing imposed during Wright's period
of supervised release is not plain error. See Calverley, 37 F.3d
at 162-64. The district court only imposed the condition mandated
by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). That condition serves the legitimate
purpose of enforcing the general condition requiring supervisees to
refrain from unlawful use of controlled substances. Persons on
supervision do not enjoy absolute liberty but only conditional
liberty dependent upon observance of special conditions. Griffin
v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 874 (1987). There is no Fourth
Amendment violation.
AFFIRMED.