UNITED STATES v. KOROL LOCKE (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Waiver must be knowing and voluntary. United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921, 922 (9th Cir. 2004)). The record would support a finding that Korol-Locke’s waiver was both, but in spite of that, we review his argument that a probation condition prevents privileged conversations with counsel. Even if Korol-Locke did not waive the right to appeal the denial of his motion to modify or clarify his probation condition, the ordered monitoring technique does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary for the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C § 3553(a)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b); see also United States v. Wong, 687 Fed.App'x 593, 596 (9th Cir. 2017); United States v. Cuneo, 472 Fed.App'x 648, 649 (9th Cir. 2012). Nothing in the ordered monitoring technique violates a constitutional right or runs afoul of the Electronic Surveillance Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq.

AFFIRMED.