
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul FISCHER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50205.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 9, 2012.
    Yvonne L. Garcia, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Jerald Lee Brainin, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Paul Fischer appeals from the supervised release conditions imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for maintaining a drug-involved premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for resentencing.

Fischer contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the mandatory condition of drug testing, and by imposing a number of special conditions of supervised release. Because Fischer did not object at sentencing, we review his contentions for plain error. See United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir.2008).

The district court did not err in imposing a drug testing condition diming Fischer’s supervised release because drug testing is a required condition of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Further, the district court did not err when it imposed a condition requiring Fischer to perform 20 hours of community service. See Vega, 545 F.3d at 748-49.

The district court plainly erred, however, by imposing supervised release conditions relating to alcohol use and participation in a substance abuse treatment programs, because there was no evidence at the time of sentencing that Fischer had an alcohol or substance abuse problem. See United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872, 877-79 (9th Cir.2007). As a result, we vacate that portion of the sentence and remand.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     