United States v. William McCorcle

680 F. App'x 637
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 14, 2017
Docket15-10617
StatusUnpublished

This text of 680 F. App'x 637 (United States v. William McCorcle) 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. William McCorcle, 680 F. App'x 637 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

William Mac McCorcle appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges conditions of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We dismiss.

McCorcle contends that the district court erred in imposing special conditions of supervised release requiring him to at *638 tend gambling addiction treatment and prohibiting him from gambling or entering any gambling establishment for one year. The government argues that this appeal should be dismissed based on the appeal waiver contained in the parties’ plea agreement. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011), we dismiss. Contrary to McCor-cle’s contentions, the challenged conditions are constitutional because they are reasonably related to the goals of protecting the public and rehabilitation, and involve no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2); see also United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 983 (9th Cir. 2009). Retaining the remainder of the condition, we construe special condition of supervision number 3 as only barring McCorcle from entering or frequenting establishments whose primary purpose is providing legal or illegal gambling activities. See United States v. Gnirke, 775 F.3d 1155, 1166 (9th Cir. 2015) (adopting a limiting construction of a supervised release condition that was consistent with the district court’s intent but avoided unconstitutional overbreadth). So construed, McCorcle’s sentence is not illegal and we dismiss pursuant to the valid appeal waiver. See Watson, 582 F.3d 988.

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate, for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

Related

United States v. Harris
628 F.3d 1203 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Watson
582 F.3d 974 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Samueli
582 F.3d 988 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. David P. Gnirke
775 F.3d 1155 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
680 F. App'x 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-william-mccorcle-ca9-2017.