United States v. Jason Garcia

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 7, 2020
• Docket: 20-30046
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30046

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00260-DCN-1

v. MEMORANDUM* JASON LOWAL GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Jason Lowal Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges two special conditions of supervised release imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Garcia challenges the special conditions of supervised release that require

him to participate in a sexual deviancy evaluation and submit to polygraph testing

as part of the evaluation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

these conditions, which are reasonably related to the goals of deterrence and

protecting the public and involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is

reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2); United States v. Hohag,

893 F.3d 1190, 1192, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review and

holding that assessment and polygraph conditions were justified by risks indicated

by failure to register and imposed minimal burden on liberty). Although Garcia’s

only conviction for a sexual offense against a minor occurred in 2000, the district

court’s imposition of the conditions is supported by Garcia’s two recent

convictions for failing to register as a sex offender and lack of any previous

assessment or treatment. See Hohag, 893 F.3d at 1193-94 (“[W]hen some recent

event suggests that a defendant still poses a risk of engaging in sexual misconduct,

there exists a greater need for a condition meant to address a defendant’s history of

sexual misconduct.”). Moreover, contrary to Garcia’s contention, the record

reflects that the district court considered Garcia’s arguments and adequately

explained its reasons for imposing the challenged conditions. See United States v.

Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Garcia’s motion to stay the imposition of the challenged conditions pending

2 20-30046 appeal is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

3 20-30046