United States v. Clark
This text of 4 F. App'x 476 (United States v. Clark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM2
James Williams Clark, currently serving a 197-month prison term, appeals a special condition of supervised release imposed following his conviction by guilty plea to one count of unarmed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and affirm.
Clark contends that the district court erred by imposing as a special condition of supervised release the requirement that he take appropriate medication for the treatment of mental or emotional disorder, if a current mental health evaluation recommends that he do so, taking into consideration any history of negative side effects previously experienced with the prescribed medication. To the extent Clark’s contention is not waived because he did not specifically object in the district court, United States v. Robertson, 52 F.3d 789, 791 (9th Cir.1995), we review for abuse of discretion, United States v. Pinjuv, 218 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. [477]*4771025, 121 S.Ct. 597, 148 L.Ed.2d 511 (2000).
Based on the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the special condition is reasonably related to the statutory factors, and does not involve an excessive deprivation of liberty. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3563(b), and 3583(d); Pinjuv, 218 F.3d at 1132.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 F. App'x 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-clark-ca9-2001.