T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J AME S T R AC Y C UN E O, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 30076 D . C . N o. 6: 09 -c r- 60 06 0-A A -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon A nn L . A i ke n, C hi e f

D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 5, 2012 ** P or t l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: W . F L E T C H E R , F IS H E R , an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D e f e nda nt - appe l l a ntJ a m e s C une o appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e voc a t i on of hi s probat i on and i t s i m po si t i on or m ai nt enance of tw o con di t i on s of hi s s up ervi se d re l ea se . 

# FI LED APR10 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

“ T he di stri ctcourthas broad di sc re t i on t o revok e probat i on , and such deci si on s a re re vi ew ed on l y f or an abuse of di sc re t i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . D a ly , 839 F . 2d 59 8, 59 9 (9th C i r. 19 88 ). C un eo’ s probat i on w as subj ec tt o the spec i al c ondi t i on tha the s ubm i tt o a c om put e rs e a r c h “ a ta r e a s onabl e t i m e a nd i n a re as on abl e m anner. ” T he cond i t i on s f or the se ar ch se tby the prob at i on offi ce r w e r e r e a s o n ab le a n d p r o p e r ly w ith in h is d is c r e tio n , s e e U ni te d State s v . Ste

phe ns , 424 F . 3d 876, 880 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , a nd thus the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e voc a t i on of C une o’ s pr oba t i on f

orf a i l ur e t o abi de by the m w a s nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on. T hi s c our t“ r e vi e w [ s ] c ondi t i ons of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e f

orabus e of di s c r e t i on, ” a nd the pe t i t i one r“ be a r s the bur de n of s how i ng tha tthe [ c ondi t i ons of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e ] s e tby the di s tr i c tc our ti nvol ve [ ] a gr e a t e rde pr i va t i on of l i berty than i s r ea sonabl y r equi re d. ” U ni te d State s v . J

e r e m i ah , 493 F . 3d 1042, 1 0 4 6

– 4 7 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s refu sal t o p erm i tC u n eo t o u se m a r iju a n a w a s n o t a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . See 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(d). T he di stri ct c our t ’ s i m pos i t i on of

a c ondi t i on r e qui r i ng tha tC une o pa r t i c i pa t e i n apr ogr a m f or m on i t ori ng hi s c om pu t eruse c on nect ed t o the Int ernet , as desc ri bed i n i t s ora l or de rof M a r c h 16, 2011, w a s a l s o nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on. T he c our tr e l a t e d the cond i t i on t o the pu rposes of supervi se d rel ea se , and the cond i t i on i s nota gre at er d e p r iv a tio n o f

lib e r ty th a n is r e a s o n ab ly n e c e s s a ry . Se e U ni te d State s v . Q ui nz on ,3

6 4 3 F .3 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 7 1

– 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) ; U n i ted S ta tes v. G o dda rd , 537 F . 3d 1087, 1089–90 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s w r i tt e n or de rof M a r c h 30, 2011, ho w ever , di ff

er s f rom i t s ora l order i n thati tpl ac es no l i m i t at i on s on the com pu t er m oni t or i ng t o w hi c h C une o m us ts ubm i t . W e va c a t e the c om put e rm oni t or i ng c ondi t i on de s c r i be d i n tha tw r i tt e n or de ra nd r e m a nd f orthe l i m i t e d purpos e of al l ow i ng the di stri ctcourtt o con form the w ri tt en order desc ri bi ng the com pu t er m on i t ori ng cond i t i on t o i t s pri or oral order. AF F I R ME D I N P AR T , VA C AT E D I N P AR T , AN D R E MAND E D.