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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc 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 . ED N EED LES,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 30309 D . C . N o. 3: 09 -c r- 00 47 6-M O -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 M i c ha e l W . M os m a n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r31, 2012 ** B efo re: F IS H E R , P A E Z an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E d N e e d le s ap p e a ls th e o r d e ro f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e v o k in g h is p r o b a tio n . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, w e r e vi e w f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on a n d w e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED MA R 21 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

1. N e e d le s ’ a r g u m e n t th a t h e w a s n o t in v io la tio n o f th e te rm s o f

h is prob at i on because he had an approv ed pl an of op er at i on const i tut es an im p e rm is s ib le c o lla te r a l a tta c ko n h is c o n v ic tio n . Se e U ni te d State s v . Si m m ons , 812 F . 2d 561, 563 ( 9th C i r . 1987) ( “ [ A ] n appe a l f r om apr oba t i on r e voc a t i on i s not th e p r o p e ra v e n u e f

o rac o lla te r a l a tta c ko n th e u n d e r ly in g c o n v ic tio n .” ) . W e th e r e f o r e d e c lin e to e n te rta in th is a r g u m e n t. 2. T h e c o n d itio n o f

p r o b a tio n r e q u ir in g N e e d le s to r e m o v e a ll p r o p e rty f r om F or e s tS e rvi c e l a nds w i thi n 30 da y s w a s noti m pe rm i s s i bl yva gue . T he r e c o r d s h o w s th a t th e c o n d itio n ap p lie dto a ll p r o p e rtyo w n e db yN e e d le s a n dh is pa rtne r s , a nd tha the w a s a w a r e of the f ul l s c ope of

the c ondi t i on. T he c ondi t i on w a s s u f f ic ie n tlys p e c if

ic . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 6 3 ( d ) ; U n i ted S ta tes v. So l tero , 510 F . 3d 85 8, 86 6 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( per c uri am ). 3. W e a l s o r e

j e c tN e e dl e s ’ a r gum e nttha the w a s r e qui r e d t o r e m ove prop erty thathe nei ther ow ned n or control l ed. F i rs t , al tho ug h N ee dl es as se rt s that th e p r o p e rtyb e lo n g e d to A rth u rS ap p in g to n , h e h a s n o t p r e s e n te da n ya d m is s ib le e v id e n c e to th a t e f

f e c t. H e in s te a dr e lie s o n h e a r s a ys ta te m e n ts b yh is a tto rn e y . S e c ond, e ve n i f

the pr ope rtyw a s “ ow ne d” byS appi ngt on, N e e dl e s ha s not pres ent ed any e vi dence thathe l ac ked autho ri ty t o rem ov e i t . F i nal l y, the di stri ct3

c o u rt d idn o t im p o s e ad u tyo n th ir dp a rtie s ; U ni ted States v. Sw ee ney , 914 F . 2d 12 60 , 12 63 (9th C i r. 19 90 ), i s there fore i napp l i cabl e. AF F I RME D.