Case ID: f-appx_456/html/0665-01.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. Michael Jerri JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30049.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 28, 2011.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Kurt P. Her-manns, Esquire, Sunni Young Ko, USTA— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jeffrey C. Grant, Skellenger Bender, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Michael Jerri James, pro se.
    Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Jerri James appeals from certain special conditions of supervised release imposed following his 2011 revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

James contends that the district court erred by imposing special conditions of supervised release relating to searches and financial disclosure because those conditions were not included in his original sentence for the underlying crime. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), (e); United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2010). The challenged conditions were reasonably related to the sentencing goals of deterrence and protection of the public, and James has not shown that they involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1118-19 (9th Cir .2010).

In his reply brief, James conceded that the other issues raised in his opening brief are moot. Therefore, we do not address those issues.

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