N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C HUNG YU YEUNG, AKA Louis Ye ung, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50314

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00609-C AS-2
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C hristina A. Sny de r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 14, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PAEZ, PAR

KER , ** and C LIFTON, C irc u it Judge s. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt C hung Yu Ye ung a

p pe a ls his se nte nc e following his
c onvic tion of onec ount of c onspira c y to c om m it ba nk fra ud in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1349 a

nd 1344, a

nd to four c ounts of a i ding a nd a be tting ba nk fra ud in 

# F IL ED DEC 20 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble B arrington D. Pa

rke r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U .S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Se c ond C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1344 a nd 42. He c ha l le nge s the spe c ia l c onditions of supe rvise d re le a se im

pose d by the distric t c ourt. W e a ffirm
. Ye ung a ppe a ls thre e c onditions of supe rvise d re le a se a ssoc iate d with
c om pute r usa ge , C onditions 8, 9, a n d 10. Ye ung c onte nds tha t the se re stric tions a

re not re a sona

ble
. W e have he ld tha

t c onditions tha

t ba n inte rne t or c om

p ute r use outright or prohibit c om

pute r use w i thout pe rm ission from a probation offic e r we re too
re stric tive
. Se e Unite d State s v . LaC o ste , 821 F.3d 1187, 1190–92 (9th C ir. 2016); Unite d State s v . Barsumy an , 517 F.3d 1154, 1160–62 (9th C i r. 2008); Unite d State s v . Sale s , 476 F.3d 732, 737 (9th C ir. 2007). Thec onditions here we re not sim ila rly ove rbroa d, howe ve r. Ye ung wa s not re quire d to a sk pe rm ission be fore
a c c e ssing a

c om pute r or the inte rne t, only to inform the probation offic e r whic h
c om pute rs or c om

pute r-re l ate d de vic e s he wa s a c c e ssing. Simila rly , though in
som e c a se s this c ourt ha s he ld re stric tive c onditions on c om p ute r use to be too ta nge ntia l to the c ha

rge d c rim e , s e e

, e .g., Sale

s , 476 F.3d a

t 737, tha t is not the situa tion he re . Ye un g use d c om pute rs a nd the inte rne t e xte nsive ly in furthe ranc e of his c rim e s a

nd hid thec om

pa ny ’ s c om pute rs a nd se rve rs de ta iling theloc ation of the c om pa ny ’ s inve n tory

onc e the fra

ud ha d be e n disc ove re d
.

2Ye ung a lso a rgue d tha t C ondition 10 of supe

rvise d re le a se wa s ove rbroa d sinc e the c ondition did not c la rify whe the r the c om

pute r m onitoring progra

m
a pplie d to inte rne t

use only or a lso to ge ne ra l c o m

pute r use . W e have a lre a dy
c onc lude d tha

t a sim i la r c ondition a

pplie d only

to inte rne t usa ge . Unite d State s v . Quinzon , 643 F.3d 1266, 1272–73 (9th C ir. 2011). He re , the gove rnm e nt c onc e de s that C ondition 10 only a

pplie s to inte rne t usa ge . C onse que ntly , we hold tha t the c ha lle nge d c onditions a re c onsiste nt with the princ iple s of 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) of prote c ting thepublic from furthe r harm

and de te rre nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . W olf C hild, 699 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th C ir. 2012). AFFIRM E D.

3