NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
RONALD LEE TSOSIE,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 10090

D.C. No. 3:94

- cr

- 00031

- DGC

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 5, 2020 * * Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GRABER, HURWITZ, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

While on supervised release from a federal conviction, Ronald Tsosie was

convicted in Arizona state court of attempted sexual assault. After Tsosie completed

a four

- year state sentence, the district court revoked supervised release and im posed

a 27

- month term of imprisonment to be followed by 27 months of supervised release

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Tsosie challenges that sentence and argues that the district

court plainly erred in imposing a special condition of supervised release. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

1. Because Tsosie did not argue below that the district court “ fail [ ed ] to
adequately address all of [his] arguments ,” we review the sentence for plain error
, United States v. Rangel , 697 F.3d 795, 805 (9th Cir. 2012) , and find none

. Tsosie
has not “show[n] ‘a reasonable probability that he would have received a different

sentence’” had the district court explicitly considered whether he should receive a

reduced sentence because he lost the opportunity to serve his state and federal terms

concurrently. United States v. Hanson , 936 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting

United States v. Dallman , 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008)). The district c ourt
emphasized that its sentence served to protect the public from any further crimes

Tsosie might commit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). It is therefore “highly

uncertain whether [Tsosie] would have received a lesser sentence

. ” United States v.

Christ ensen , 732 F.3d 1094, 1106 (9th Cir. 2013).

2. Special Condition 9 of supervised release authorizes the search of
Tsosie’s electronic devices in the lawful discharge of a probation officer’s

supervisory functions. Tsosie did not object to this condition be low , but now argues

that the district court plain ly erred by failing to “make [] a factual finding establishing
some nexus between [electronic device] use and one of the goals” of supervised3

release. United States v. Bare , 806 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 201 5). The district

cour t did not commit plain error in adopting the probation officer’s justification for

the condition and finding it reasonably related to Tsosie’s rehabilitation. See United

States v. T.M. , 330 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2003) (“ The supervised release

conditions need not relate to the offense for which [the defendant] was convicted as

long as they satisfy any of the conditions set forth [in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(d)(1) and
3553(a)].” )

. Another special condition, not challenged on appeal, prohibit s Tsosie

from possessing sexually explicit material. Special Condition 9 works in further ance

of that condition.

AFFIRMED.