29 F.4th 273
5th Cir.2022Background
- Henderson was convicted in 2018 of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and received a term of supervised release.
- After violating that release, the district court in June 2021 sentenced him to 21 months imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release that reincorporated prior and district-standard conditions.
- The contested condition (a Western District of Texas standard) permits a probation officer, if he determines the defendant poses a risk to another person or organization, to require the defendant to notify the potential victim and to confirm that notification.
- Henderson did not object to the condition at sentencing and raised the challenge for the first time on appeal, arguing the condition improperly delegates a judicial (Article III) function to the probation officer.
- The parties and the court agreed plain-error review applied (defendant had an opportunity to object but did not); under that standard defendant had to show clear, obvious error that affected substantial rights.
- The Fifth Circuit held there was no plain error, noting the circuit had not clearly decided the delegation question and relying on prior Fifth Circuit authority, and therefore affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the risk-notification condition impermissibly delegates judicial authority to a probation officer | The condition is a permissible standard term; no clear, controlling precedent shows it is an unlawful delegation, so no plain error | The condition vests the probation officer with sole authority to decide if the condition applies, impermissibly delegating Article III sentencing power | No plain error: affirmed — circuit had not clearly ruled the issue and similar prior authority supported the condition |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 2020) (standard for review when defendant first raises condition on appeal)
- United States v. Diggles, 957 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2020) (discussion of preservation and plain-error review)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error framework)
- United States v. Vargas, 21 F.4th 332 (5th Cir. 2021) (applying plain-error elements)
- United States v. Franklin, 838 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2016) (probation officers’ supervisory powers constrained by Article III)
- United States v. Johnson, [citation="777 F. App'x 754"] (5th Cir. 2019) (upholding the same risk-notification condition; no plain error)