United States v. Miguel Andrade

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 20, 2019
• Docket: 19-50063
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50063

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 8:09-cr-00243-CJC-1

v. MEMORANDUM* MIGUEL RAMON ANDRADE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Ramon Andrade appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges one condition of supervised release imposed upon revocation of

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Andrade challenges the special condition of supervised release that prohibits

* 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). him from “possess[ing] or view[ing] any materials such as videos, magazines,

photographs, computer images or that matter that depicts ‘actually sexually explicit

conduct’ involving adults as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2257(h)(1).” Contrary to

Andrade’s assertion, this condition does not prohibit him from engaging in all

sexual conduct, but rather, appropriately restricts his access to materials depicting

sexually explicit conduct involving adults. See United States v. Ochoa, 932 F.3d

866, 870-71 (9th Cir. 2019). Moreover, in light of the circumstances of this case,

the condition is reasonably related to the protection of the public and Andrade’s

rehabilitation, and the condition involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is

reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(d); United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-50063