UNITED STATES v. ARRINGTON (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Marcus Xavier Arrington appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence and one special condition of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Arrington contends that the district court erred by imposing the revocation sentence to punish him for the criminal conduct underlying the revocation, and to promote respect for the law. We review for plain error, see United States v. Burgum, 633 F.3d 810, 812 (9th Cir. 2011), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court relied on only proper sentencing factors, including Arrington’s poor history on supervision, the need to afford adequate deterrence, and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

Arrington also challenges the special condition of supervised release that requires him to obtain permission from his probation officer before having any “direct contact” with minors under the age of 18. He maintains the condition is not reasonably related to his offense of conviction and is overbroad. The district court did not abuse its discretion or run afoul of the Constitution. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard). As an initial matter, Arrington has not identified any familial relationship that would be impacted by this condition. Furthermore, the condition is reasonably related to the protection of the public and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2); United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d at 983-85.