NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JOSHUA ALLEN WARD, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-30399 D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00142-EJL-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 5, 2014 Portland, Oregon Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Ci rcuit Judges, and BLOCK, Senior District Judge. ** Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), challenging the district court’s denial 

# FILED
MAR 10 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.of his motion to suppress statements made during his parole-revocation hearing. We affirm. The district court did not err in de nying defendant’s motion to suppress. Statements made during a probation-revocation and sentencing hearing may be used during a subsequent criminal trial for the same act that constituted the probation violation. Ryan v. Montana , 580 F.2d 988, 990–91 (9th Cir. 1978). As in Ryan , defendant does not argue that sile nce would have given rise to an inference of guilt at his revocation hearing. Defendant may have been faced with a difficult choice between exercising his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and his right to be heard at his parole-revocation hearing. But such a choice does not amount to unconstitutional compulsion. Id. at 992–93; see also McGautha v. California , 402 U.S. 183, 210–13 (1971). The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Knights , 534 U.S. 112 (2001), did not effectively overrule Ryan or otherwise alter our analysis. We have recognized that Knights overruled our precedent prohibiting parole officers from conducting searches for the purposes of general criminal investigation. See, e.g. , United States v. Stokes , 292 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir. 2002). But the Court’s repudiation of the rule against using the parole system as a “subterfuge” for general criminal investigations in that context casts no doubt on the central reasoning of 2Ryan : that, had Ryan chosen to remain s ilent, he would have suffered no automatic sanctions. 580 F.2d at 991. Finally, we decline to use our superv isory powers to create a rule requiring use immunity for testimony given at a parole-revocation hearing. To do so would be inappropriate here, where there is di rect controlling precedent and defendant has not shown a constitutional violation or ot herwise illegal conduct on the part of the Government. See United States v. Hasting , 461 U.S. 499, 505 (1983) (describing the key purposes of the supervisory powers); United States v. Payner , 447 U.S. 727, 734–37 (1980) (stating that supervisory powers are to be applied “with some caution” and “restrain[t],” otherwise they would “confer on the judiciary discretionary power to disregard the consid ered limitations of the law it is charged with enforcing”). AFFIRMED.

3