The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
05-1512•United States of America v. Lorenzo Eaton
05-1512Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitNov 15, 2005
* 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).
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 14, 2005*
Decided November 15, 2005
Before
Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
No. 05-1512
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LORENZO EATON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division
No. 04-CR-160-1
John W. Darrah,
Judge.
O R D E R
Lorenzo Eaton pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after a felony
conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced to 87 months’
imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. Eaton now appeals his sentence,
arguing narrowly that the district court erred when it ordered him to submit to
urine tests as a condition of his supervised release without specifying a particular
number of tests. The district court left that decision to the probation officer who
will supervise Eaton, but Eaton correctly recognizes that the court, not the
probation officer, must determine the number of required drug tests. 18 U.S.C.
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 05-1512 Page 2
§ 3583(d); United States v. Bonanno, 146 F.3d 502, 511 (7th Cir. 1998). Eaton’s
failure to object to this condition at sentencing renders our review for plain error
only, see United States v. Guy, 174 F.3d 859, 861 (7th Cir. 1999), but, as the
government concedes, an inappropriate delegation of judicial authority to the
probation office may constitute plain error, United States v. Pandiello, 184 F.3d
682, 688 (7th Cir. 1999). The government thus joins Eaton in urging that the case
be remanded, and we agree. We REMAND with directions to the district court to
modify the conditions of supervised release to specify the number of drug tests that
Eaton must submit to during his supervised release.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.