Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0929-01.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. Buford Eddy TERWILLEGER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30321
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 02, 2016
    Charlene Koski, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Rebecca Shapiro Cohen, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Linda R. Sullivan, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA—Fed-eral Public Defender’s Office (Tacoma), Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Buford Eddy Terwilleger appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges a condition of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register and update sex offender registration, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Terwilleger challenges the condition of supervised release requiring him to participate in a sexual-deviancy assessment. We review for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Napulou, 593 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. Contrary to Terwilleger’s contentions, the condition is reasonably related to the goals of protect ing the public and rehabilitation in light of his history and characteristics and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2); United States v. Johnson, 697 F.3d 1249, 1251 (9th Cir. 2012) (an assessment condition is a “much less significant restraint” than sex offender treatment and justified even when the prior convictions are decades-old).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.