United States v. Simpson

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10423
Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALTON SIMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-27-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

Alton Simpson was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and to distribute crack cocaine. He now appeals the sentence
imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Specifically,
Simpson challenges four of the standard conditions of supervised release
included in the original written judgment, which the district court reimposed

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-10423 Document: 00515255749 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2020

No. 19-10423
2
following revocation. He maintains that these conditions constitute
impermissible delegations of judicial authority to the probation officer.
Because Simpson failed to object to the reimposition of the supervised
release terms, we review his claim for plain error. See United States v. Barber,
865 F.3d 837, 839 (5th Cir. 2017). To establish plain error, Simpson must show
a forfeited error that is clear or obvious that affects his substantial rights.
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing,
we have the discretion to correct the error but only if it “seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Rosales-Mireles
v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1905 (2018) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
The imposition of supervised release conditions and terms “is a core
judicial function that cannot be delegated.” United States v. Franklin, 838 F.3d
564, 568 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Simpson argues that the district court erred by reimposing standard conditions
of supervised release requiring him to participate in programs for substance
abuse treatment, mental health treatment, cognitive behavioral treatment,
and workforce development “if deemed necessary by the probation officer.” We
have held that such language “creates an ambiguity regarding whether the
district court intended to delegate authority not only to implement treatment
but to decide whether treatment was needed.” Id. (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
Simpson has shown a clear and obvious error affecting his substantial
rights. Id.; see Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Additionally, we conclude that this
error “seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
proceedings” because it involves core judicial functions. Puckett, 556 U.S. at
135; see Barber, 865 F.3d at 841. Consequently, we will exercise our discretion
Case: 19-10423 Document: 00515255749 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2020

No. 19-10423
3
to correct the error by vacating the challenged standard conditions and
remanding for resentencing. Accordingly, we VACATE the standard
conditions requiring substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment,
cognitive behavioral treatment, and workforce development training and
REMAND to the district court for resentencing, with the following clarifying
instruction:

If the district court intends that the therapy be mandatory but
leaves a variety of details, including the selection of a therapy
provider and schedule to the probation officer, such a condition of
probation may be imposed. If, on the other hand, the court intends
to leave the issue of the defendant's participation in therapy to the
discretion of the probation officer, such a condition would
constitute an impermissible delegation of judicial authority and
should not be included.

Franklin, 838 F.3d at 568 (citation omitted).
Case: 19-10423 Document: 00515255749 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/02/2020