or setting a limitation on the number of tests per year. Taste concedes that this claim is reviewed for plain error because he did not object below. To establish plain error, Taste must demonstrate that the district court erred, the error was plain, and the error affected his substantial rights. Henderson v. United States, - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 1126, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013). If these requirements are met, the court will exercise its discretion to correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1126-27 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). We conclude that the district court did not err in imposing the special condition. See United States v. Carpenter, 702 F.3d 882, 884-885 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming error, any improper delegation
holding that when the district court imposed drug testing in connection with a special condition of substance abuse program participation  it was  not required to specify the number of drug tests a defendant must undergo as a part of the treatment program holding defendant was placed in classic penalty situation when he was required as condition of probation to participate in treatment program that required participants to disclose their offense history holding trial court could not make completion of courtordered treatment program requiring an admission of guilt a condition of probation holding that 18 usc  3583d requires that the court determine the number of drug tests to which the defendants must submit holding that the requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which must be pronounced at sentencing