UNITED STATES v. BARRAGAN (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Alberto Barragan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges a special condition of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Barragan contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately why it was imposing a condition of supervised release requiring inpatient substance-abuse treatment. We review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court did not plainly err because its reasons for imposing the condition are apparent from the record. See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2008). Nor was it plain error to omit any specific duration for the treatment program. See United States v. Dupas, 419 F.3d 916, 924 (9th Cir. 2005) (district court did not plainly err in delegating decision to the probation officer where it was not clear under current law that the decision could not be delegated).

Finally, Barragan contends that the challenged condition is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The condition is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Barragan’s lack of success with outpatient drug treatment. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.