to substance abuse testing, at any time, as directed by the probation officer. The defendant shall cooperatively participate in a substance abuse treatment program, which may include drug testing and inpatient or residential treatment.... On appeal, Taste first alleges that the district court’s special condition that he “submit to substance abuse testing at any time as directed by the probation officer” constitutes an improper delegation of judicial function to the probation officer. Specifically, he maintains that the district court erred in authorizing the probation department to conduct substance abuse testing at any time during his term of supervision, without issuing a s d not affect Taste’s substantial rights. See United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 996 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Padilla, 415 F.3d 211,
holding that inadmissible testimony did not rise to level of plain error because the overwhelming evidence against defendant leads us to conclude that the error committed did not cause the jury to reach a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding any improper delegation did not rise to level of plain error holding that improper argument about purging jurors community of drug conspiracies did not rise to level of plain error holding that an infringement on the defendants fundamental due process right in the form of a comment on the defendants silence by the prosecution did not rise to level of plain error