United States v. Jose A. Tejeda, United States of America v. Daniel L. Dropik

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reviewing special condition of supervised release for plain error because defendant failed to object when condition was imposed
• approving district court’s total ban on alcohol use as a condition of supervised release
• noting district court’s authority to order drug testing as a condition of supervised release
• approving district court’s total ban on alcohol use as a condition of supervised release
• finding no plain error in supervised release condition for drug testing
• leaving scheduling for drug testing after release to the probation department, while assumed to be error, did not require correction under the plain error doctrine because leaving scheduling to the probation department did not affect Tejeda’s substantial rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).