United States v. Flowers, Clifton , 168 F. App'x 736 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED ORDER
    Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted February 17, 2006*
    Decided February 21, 2006
    Before
    Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
    Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
    Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
    No. 05-2273
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                   Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                     Court for the Northern District of
    Illinois, Eastern Division.
    v.
    No. 04-CR-700-1
    CLIFTON FLOWERS,
    Defendant-Appellant.                   James B. Zagel,
    Judge.
    ORDER
    Clifton Flowers pleaded guilty to being in the United States without
    permission after he was removed following conviction for an aggravated felony. See
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1326
    (a). He was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment and three years’
    supervised release. Flowers now appeals his sentence, arguing only that the district
    court erred when it ordered him to submit to urine tests as a condition of his
    *
    After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that
    oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the
    record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    No. 05-2273                                                                        Page 2
    supervised release without specifying a maximum number of tests. Flowers correctly
    recognizes that the court, not the probation officer, must determine the required
    number of tests. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (d); United States v. Bonanno, 
    146 F.3d 502
    , 511
    (7th Cir. 1998). However Flowers never objected to the drug-testing condition in the
    district court, so our review is for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v.
    Guy, 
    174 F.3d 859
    , 861 (7th Cir. 1999). The government concedes that delegation of
    judicial authority to a probation officer may constitute plain error, see United States
    v. Pandiello, 
    184 F.3d 682
    , 688 (7th Cir. 1999), and joins Flowers in urging that this
    case be remanded. But because one component of plain error is a manifestly unjust
    outcome, see United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 732 (1993), Flowers cannot
    establish that the error here was plain. Flowers will be removed from the United
    States by the Department of Homeland Security when he completes his term of
    imprisonment, thus effectively ending his supervision and its required drug testing.
    Therefore no injustice has occurred.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-2273

Citation Numbers: 168 F. App'x 736

Judges: Hon, Bauer, Easterbrook, Evans

Filed Date: 2/21/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024