U.S. v. Crisp

Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing as term of supervised release requirement that defendant participate in substance abuse treatment with proviso that defendant pay for such treatment if financially able to do so as directed by U.S. Probation Office. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct. improperly delegated to U.S. Probation Office right to determine his ability to pay for such treatment, since Dist. Ct. may assign to probation officer responsibility of gathering information about defendant’s financial status and making initial determination of how much defendant must pay, where, as here, Dist. Ct. is available to review any challenge to probation officer’s determination.