United States v. Eric Vaughn ( 2024 )

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 24a0245p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
┐
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
│
Plaintiff-Appellee, │
> No. 24-5090
│
v. │
│
ERIC VAUGHN, │
Defendant-Appellant. │
┘
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
No. 1:22-cr-00133-1—Travis Randall McDonough, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: October 29, 2024
Before: GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ON BRIEF: Howard W. Anderson, III, TRULUCK THOMASON LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Brian Samuelson, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, Eric Vaughn contests special conditions
of his supervised release. He argues that the sentencing court improperly delegated its judicial
function to the probation office by not providing enough condition specifics. We disagree and
AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
No. 24-5090 United States v. Vaughn Page 2
I.
Police pulled Mr. Vaughn over for speeding. Vaughn exited his car and ran from the
officers. Vaughn, who was a convicted felon, also scrapped a pistol mid-flight. The officers
captured him and retrieved his gun. A grand jury indicted Vaughn for unlawful possession of a
firearm as a felon. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced
Vaughn to 53 months’ imprisonment with a special assessment and three years of supervised
release. The court also imposed multiple mandatory and special conditions of supervised
release.
Vaughn’s appeal centers around Special Conditions 1 and 2 of his supervised release. He
argues the first special condition improperly delegates power from the district court by giving the
probation officer the power to determine drug-testing frequency and whether he must receive
alcohol treatment. Vaughn also contends that by giving the probation officer leeway to decide
whether his mental-health treatment is inpatient or outpatient, Special Condition 2 improperly
delegates judicial power. Vaughn is not the first to lodge such arguments in this court.
At sentencing, Vaughn objected to part of Special Condition 1, asking the court to
“wordsmith[]” the condition by providing “some sort of schedule rather than leaving it up to
Probation.” Sentencing Tr., R. 50, PageID 298, 308. The district court overruled the objection
but responded that if “Mr. Vaughn thinks he’s being tested too often,” the court “would be happy
to consider giving the probation office some guidance on that when it comes up.” Id. at 308.
Vaughn did not object to Special Condition 2.
II.
Generally, when a defendant challenges the sentencing court’s legal authority to impose a
supervised-release condition on constitutional or statutory grounds, we review de novo. See
United States v. Carpenter, 702 F.3d 882, 884 (6th Cir. 2012). But if a defendant does not object
to such a condition in the district court, we review for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b);
United States v. Campbell, 77 F.4th 424, 432 (6th Cir. 2023). To satisfy the plain-error standard,
Vaughn would need to show an (1) error (2) that was clear or obvious, (3) that affected his
No. 24-5090 United States v. Vaughn Page 3
“substantial rights,” and (4) that affected the judicial proceeding’s fairness, integrity, or public
reputation. Campbell, 77 F.4th at 432.
III.
Federal law affords probation officers extensive authority to “use all suitable methods,
not inconsistent with the conditions specified by the court,” to help defendants like Vaughn
improve their “conduct and condition.” 18 U.S.C. § 3603(3); see also Campbell, 77 F.4th at 432.
Although Article III precludes courts from delegating their “core judicial function” of “imposing
punishment” upon convicted defendants, Campbell, 77 F.4th at 432, “the district court itself”
need not “specify the details” of the punishment. Carpenter, 702 F.3d at 885–86; see United
States v. Logins, 503 F. App’x 345, 350 (6th Cir. 2012). Instead, courts may leave
implementation specifics to probation. For “substance abuse treatment and testing,” the “district
court need only decide whether treatment is required.” Carpenter, 702 F.3d at 886. And
treatment includes testing. Id.
A. Special Condition 1
1. Drug-Test Capping
Vaughn complains that Special Condition 1 does not cap his number of drug tests. That
condition provides that Vaughn “shall participate in a program of testing and/or treatment for
drug and/or alcohol abuse as directed by the probation officer until such time as the defendant is
released from the program by the probation officer.” Sentencing Tr., R.50, PageID 310. It
touches upon Mandatory Condition 3, a condition that derives from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(4). Judgment, R. 47, PageID 266. That condition requires Vaughn to
complete a drug test “within 15 days of [his] release from imprisonment and at least two periodic
drug tests, thereafter, as determined by the court.” Id.; see also § 3583(d). Vaughn objects to the
court’s failure to specify drug-testing frequency. To Vaughn, the district court’s failure to cap
tests or create a schedule contradicts Article III and Congress’s statutory command. See
§ 3583(d). Because Vaughn raised the issue at sentencing, we review the district court’s
decision de novo.
No. 24-5090 United States v. Vaughn Page 4
The capping analysis boils down to Vaughn contesting a special condition. Congress
distinguishes “between drug testing conducted as a mandatory condition of supervised release
and drug testing performed in the course of a special condition of drug treatment.” Carpenter,
702 F.3d at 886. When issuing mandatory conditions, district courts must impose non-treatment
drug testing on the defendant as part of supervised release. § 3583(d). But when issuing special
conditions, district courts may require drug testing as part of a substance-abuse program. See
Carpenter, 702 F.3d at 886. They need not though. Because district courts have this discretion,
testing caps apply only to mandatory conditions—not special conditions. See id.; Logins, 503 F.
App’x at 353. When district courts decide to impose drug testing through a special condition,
they fulfill their statutory and Article III duties so long as the court “decide[s] whether treatment
is required.” Carpenter, 702 F.3d at 886; United States v. Lindsay, No. 24-5089, 2024 WL
4225715, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 18, 2024). They can leave program implementation to probation
officers.
Courts satisfy the special-condition requirement by employing the triggering “shall
participate” language within the condition, requiring defendants to participate in substance-abuse
testing and treatment. Carpenter, 702 F.3d at 885. Both Carpenter and Logins addressed special
conditions without drug test caps that used language almost identical to Vaughn’s condition.” Id.
at 884; Logins, 503 F. App’x at 353. Not only did we determine that § 3583(d)’s requirement
that “drug treatment be specified ‘by the court,’ does not require the district court itself to specify
the details,” Carpenter, 702 F.3d at 885 (emphasis omitted), but we also ultimately held that not
specifying the number of drug tests as “part of [a] drug treatment” meant the court “did not
impermissibly delegate its authority to the probation office,” id. at 886.
Vaughn’s argument fails because he mistakes special conditions for mandatory ones. His
own brief recognizes this mandatory-special distinction yet does not apply it properly. Opening
Br. at 8–9 (“Only for the former [mandatory] case must the district court specify the maximum
number of drug tests.”). The cases he cites from other circuits involve impositions of mandatory
drug-testing conditions, not special ones. Id.; see Lindsay, 2024 WL 4225715, at *2. Vaughn
may not apply the rule for mandatory conditions to a special condition when there is no statutory
default. In other words, Special Condition 1’s “as directed by the probation officer” language
No. 24-5090 United States v. Vaughn Page 5
does not violate § 3583(d)(2)’s “as determined by the court” language because it is a special
condition. Vaughn does not argue a defect with Mandatory 3. Nor can he. The district court
satisfied its Article III duties by using the “shall participate” language. It merely left delegable
implementation decisions to the probation officer. That is fine.
And let us not forget that Vaughn’s sentencing court created a safeguard. If Vaughn
considers probation’s drug-testing schedule too burdensome, the district court “would be happy
to consider giving the probation office some guidance on that when it comes up.” Sentencing
Tr., R. 50, PageID 308; cf. United States v. Zobel, 696 F.3d 558, 575 (6th Cir. 2012). This
statement is further evidence that the district court possesses ultimate authority over Vaughn’s
drug testing.
2. Alcohol Treatment
Vaughn also argues that Special Condition 1 improperly delegates the court’s alcohol-
abuse-treatment decision to the probation officer. Again, the special condition requires that
Vaughn “shall participate in a program of testing and/or treatment for drug and/or alcohol
abuse.” Judgment, R. 47, PageID 268. Vaughn takes issue with the “and/or” language. He says
that language lets the probation officer “decide in the first instance whether treatment—for
drugs, for alcohol, or for both—will be required.” Opening Br. at 11; Reply Br. at 2. Because
Vaughn did not raise this issue at sentencing, the district court was not on notice for any argued
deficiencies relating to Special Condition 1. Campbell, 77 F.4th at 432; see also Lindsay, 2024
WL 4225715, at *3. Because a party “must object with [a] reasonable degree of specificity,” the
claim is unpreserved, and we review it for plain error. United States v. Corp, 668 F.3d 379, 387–
88 (6th Cir. 2012). Vaughn must show that the district court made a clear error that affected his
substantial rights and the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings below.
Campbell, 77 F.4th at 432.
Vaughn does not show the district court plainly erred. This circuit is no stranger to
affirming special conditions that require defendants to participate in substance-abuse treatment
programs. See, e.g., Carpenter, 702 F.3d at 884. We have even held, albeit in an unpublished
opinion, that a special condition identical to Vaughn’s—“and/or” and all—was not an illegal
No. 24-5090 United States v. Vaughn Page 6
delegation of an alcohol-treatment decision. Lindsay, 2024 WL 4225715, at *1. Again, the
district court need only order that Vaughn “shall participate” in a substance-abuse program,
clearly deciding “whether such treatment is required.” Carpenter, 702 F.3d at 885. It can leave
details “to the discernment of the probation officer” and the “expertise” of “professionals.” Id.
Vaughn’s argument fails because “drug and/or alcohol abuse” is synonymous with “substance
abuse.” See Lindsay, 2024 WL 4225715, at *2. Our precedent clearly shows that a court does
not delegate its Article III judicial power when it requires defendants, through the “shall
participate” language, to participate in some form of substance-abuse program. Carpenter, 702
F.3d at 885. The district court expressed that Vaughn “shall participate” in some form of a
substance-abuse program. And Vaughn does not cite authority to support his treatment-
specification claim nor show how a “generic substance-abuse program would impose any
significant burdens on him because it covered alcohol-abuse treatment.” Lindsay, 2024 WL
4225715, at *3; see Opening Br. at 12–14. So, his second claim fails.
B. Special Condition 2
Lastly, Vaughn argues that the district court impermissibly delegated its authority by
failing to specify whether his mental-health treatment be inpatient or outpatient. Because he did
not raise the claim below, we review it for plain error. Campbell, 77 F.4th at 432.
Plain error review dooms Vaughn’s claim. See Lindsay, 2024 WL 4225715, at *3. A
“circuit split precludes a finding of plain error,” United States v. Al-Maliki, 787 F.3d 784, 794
(6th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted), and circuits are split on this inpatient-outpatient claim,
compare United States v. Aguilar-Cerda, 27 F.4th 1093, 1095–96 (5th Cir. 2022) (finding no
impermissible delegation), and United States v. Cutler, 259 F. App’x 883, 886–87 (7th Cir.
2008) (same), with United States v. Matta, 777 F.3d 116, 122–23 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding
impermissible delegation). See Response Br. at 14 (collecting more cases). A “lack of binding
case law” does the same, Al-Maliki, 787 F.3d at 794, and this circuit lacks binding case law
holding that a district court cannot allow the probation officer to decide whether inpatient
treatment will be required. But we do have Lindsay, which mirrors Vaughn’s case identically—
claims, briefs, counsel, and all—and that case already held the “standard of review dooms”
No. 24-5090 United States v. Vaughn Page 7
Vaughn’s same claim. 2024 WL 4225715, at *3. We find Lindsay persuasive in holding that
this inpatient-outpatient claim does not overcome the plain-error standard.
IV.
In sum, district courts do not improperly delegate their judicial authority by failing to cap
substance-abuse testing within special conditions. And district courts do not plainly err when
their special conditions do not specify whether mental-health treatment is outpatient or inpatient,
or when they expressly state that the defendant “shall participate in a program of testing and/or
treatment for drug and/or alcohol abuse.” We therefore AFFIRM.