
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. San Juanita DAVILA, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-41386 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed May 3, 2017
    
      Julie Margaret Redlinger, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Kayla R. Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

San Juanita Davila pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to transport an illegal alien and received a guidelines sentence of 15 months in prison, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. The district court imposed a special condition of release requiring Davila to participate in a substance abuse treatment program “as deemed necessary and approved by the Probation Office.” Davila now contends that the language of this condition imper-missibly delegated to the probation officer the court’s responsibility to determine whether she must participate in treatment. Because Davila did not raise this argument in the district court, we review for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); United States v. Scott, 821 F.3d 562, 570 (5th Cir. 2016).

The imposition of supervised release conditions and terms “is a core judicial function that may not be delegated." United States v. Franklin, 838 F.3d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Davila has shown a clear or obvious error affecting her substantial rights because the language of the challenged special condition “creates an ambiguity regarding whether the district court intended to delegate authority [to the probation officer] not only to implement treatment but to decide whether treatment was needed.” Id.; see Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423. 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, 129 S.Ct. 1423; see Franklin, 838 F.3d at 568. Consequently, we will exercise our discretion to correct the error by vacating the challenged special condition and remanding for resentencing. Accordingly, we VACATE the substance abuse treatment special condition and REMAND to the district court for resentenc-ing, 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. 
      
       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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     