USA v. Jarre Rhode


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10572 Affirmed ] Judge: CDK , Judge: JLD , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 08/11/2017 for Appellant Jarre Jeronce Rhodes [16-10572]

Download PDF
Case: 16-10572 Document: 00514083084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10572 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JARRE JERONCE RHODES, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15-CR-214-1 Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jarre Jeronce Rhodes appeals following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. Rhodes challenges the district court’s imposition of a special condition of supervised release providing that he “shall participate in mental health treatment services as directed by the U.S. Probation Officer until successfully discharged.” He argues that, as written, the special condition gives the probation officer the authority to determine whether he will Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-10572 Document: 00514083084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2017 No. 16-10572 participate in mental health treatment and when he is to be discharged from such treatment. Although the district court orally pronounced this condition at the sentencing hearing, Rhodes did not object. Accordingly, our review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Prieto, 801 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 2015). To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show an error that is clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute, and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If the defendant makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to remedy the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. “While a district court may properly delegate to a probation officer decisions as to the details of a condition of supervised release[,] . . . a court impermissibly delegates judicial authority when it gives a probation officer authority to decide whether a defendant will participate in a treatment program.” United States v. Franklin, 838 F.3d 564, 567-68 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although we have not addressed whether a condition like the one at issue here is improper, other circuits have concluded that a condition that unequivocally imposes a requirement on the defendant subject to a probation officer’s approval or direction is permissible. See United States v. Miller, 341 F. App’x 931, 933 (4th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases). Thus, a condition stating that the defendant “must” participate in a treatment program as directed by the probation officer and until released from the program by the probation officer was not improper. Id.; see also United States v. Kerr, 472 F.3d 517, 52324 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that a condition that a defendant “shall participate” in mental health treatment as directed by the probation officer did not constitute an improper delegation). 2 Case: 16-10572 Document: 00514083084 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2017 No. 16-10572 Given the foregoing, we conclude that if there was error, it was not clear or obvious. See, e.g., United States v. Salinas, 480 F.3d 750, 759 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?