United States v. Fidler

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Fidler

313 F. App'x 959

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 2009

DocketNo. 07-50469

StatusPublished

This text of 313 F. App'x 959 (United States v. Fidler) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Fidler, 313 F. App'x 959 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

Sheldon Fidler appeals from the district court’s imposition of two special conditions of supervised release. We affirm.

[960]*960Though we have varying reasons for affirming the requirement of compliance with the order in the FTC case, we all agree that affirmance is the proper result. First, the condition imposes no additional restriction on Fidler’s liberty, because he is not at liberty to violate a court order. Second, Fidler agreed to the FTC settlement, knowing that he was agreeing to what amounted to a condition of his supervised release. Cfi United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir.2008). Third, any error in the condition is harmless, because the FTC order has now been entered, and it bears a sufficient relationship to Fidler’s crime. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). Fourth and finally, the possibility of some future limitation on Fidler’s liberty at the time he was sentenced is not by itself a ground for rejecting the condition. The condition is analogous to conditions requiring compliance with criminal laws or a child support order, since new criminal laws may be promulgated or a new child support order entered after a defendant has been sentenced. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Each of these grounds are independent of all others, and any one of them would, standing alone, require affirmance.

The requirement to disclose his tax returns is directly related to Fidler’s history and necessary to protect the public. Fi-dler perpetrated a multi-million dollar fraud and refused to disclose aliases to the probation office. If Fidler is “receiving or spending significant funds in suspicious ways, the probation office would have reason to believe he has reengaged” with fraud. United States v. Garcia, 522 F.3d 855, 862 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

*

Sheldon Fidler appeals from the district court’s imposition of two special conditions of supervised release. We affirm.

[960]*960Though we have varying reasons for affirming the requirement of compliance with the order in the FTC case, we all agree that affirmance is the proper result. First, the condition imposes no additional restriction on Fidler’s liberty, because he is not at liberty to violate a court order. Second, Fidler agreed to the FTC settlement, knowing that he was agreeing to what amounted to a condition of his supervised release. Cfi United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir.2008). Third, any error in the condition is harmless, because the FTC order has now been entered, and it bears a sufficient relationship to Fidler’s crime. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a). Fourth and finally, the possibility of some future limitation on Fidler’s liberty at the time he was sentenced is not by itself a ground for rejecting the condition. The condition is analogous to conditions requiring compliance with criminal laws or a child support order, since new criminal laws may be promulgated or a new child support order entered after a defendant has been sentenced. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Each of these grounds are independent of all others, and any one of them would, standing alone, require affirmance.

The requirement to disclose his tax returns is directly related to Fidler’s history and necessary to protect the public. Fi-dler perpetrated a multi-million dollar fraud and refused to disclose aliases to the probation office. If Fidler is “receiving or spending significant funds in suspicious ways, the probation office would have reason to believe he has reengaged” with fraud. United States v. Garcia, 522 F.3d 855, 862 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 F. App'x 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-fidler-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack