PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Contrary to defendant’s contention, the sentence did not delegate to the probation officer the decision about mental health treatment. The judge during sentencing did indicate his intention to leave at least the ministerial details of the sentence to a probation officer; but counsel having pointed out a problem, the documented sentence is unobjectionable as it clarified that the district court only deemed mental health treatment needed. AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.