Case ID: f-appx_680/html/0637-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Mac MCCORCLE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10617
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 14, 2017
    Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Mark Elbert, Esquire, Attorney, Half Moon Bay, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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 attend 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.