Case ID: f-appx_681/html/0645-01.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. Robert Steven MCINTEE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30129
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 14, 2017
    William Adam Duerk, Attorney, Milo-dragovich, Dale & Steinbrenner P.C., Mis-soula, MT, Bryan R. Whittaker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE—Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, Victoria L. Francis, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    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). Mclntee’s request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is accordingly denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Steven Mclptee appeals from the district court’s order modifying his conditions of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mclntee challenges the district court’s modification of his conditions of supervised release to increase the maximum number of non-treatment drug tests to which Mclntee may be subjected on an annual basis. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Bainbridge, 746 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 2014). In light of the nature of Mclntee’s offense and history of substance abuse while not incarcerated, the modified condition is reasonably related to deterrence and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), (e)(2); see also United States v. Garcia, 522 F.3d 855, 861 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing authority of district court to modify conditions of supervised release to increase number of drug tests to which defendant is subject).

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