Case ID: f-appx_451/html/0684-01.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. Christopher Todd MAYER, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-30329.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 4, 2011.
    Jo Ann Farrington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Kyle G. French, Assistant U.S., U.S. Department of Justice, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kenneth M. Stern, Esquire, Law Offices of Kenneth M. Stern, Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Christopher Todd Mayer, pro se.
    
      Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Christopher Todd Mayer appeals from certain supervised release conditions imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mayer contends that because there was no evidence in the record indicating that he was a drug or alcohol abuser, the district court plainly erred by imposing drug- and alcohol-related supervised release conditions. The district court properly imposed the mandatory drug-related supervised release conditions because the evidence before it did not support a finding that Mayer was a low risk of future substance abuse. See United States v. Carter, 159 F.3d 397, 399-400 (9th Cir.1998). Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the discretionary drug- and alcohol-related conditions because such conditions, including the condition that Mayer refrain from excessive use of alcohol, were reasonably related to the purposes of sentencing and involved no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); Carter, 159 F.3d at 400-01.

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