UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4088

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSHUA CARDINE, a/k/a Josh,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

SHIRLEY LOVEGROVE; TOM LOVEGROVE,

Parties in Interest.

----------------------------------

JOAN WATT; BAYVIEW HOLDINGS, LLC,

Movants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00424-RLW)

Submitted: July 12, 2006 Decided: July 31, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Charles D.

Lewis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Sapna Mirchandani,

Research and Writing Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.

Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, S. David Schiller,

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Cardine appeals the district court’s order

modifying his criminal judgment and adding a special condition of

supervised release to prohibit him from employment in the

equestrian industry. Cardine contends the district court erred by

banning him from all equestrian-related employment when his

conviction stemmed only from the fraudulent sale of horses. We

affirm.

District courts have broad latitude in imposing special

conditions of supervised release, and we review a district court’s

imposition of a special condition for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Dotson, 324 F.3d 256, 259-60 (4th Cir. 2003). A

condition may be imposed prohibiting a defendant from engaging in

a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a

reasonably direct relationship to the conduct relevant to the

offense of conviction. 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5) (2000); 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3583(d) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual (“USSG”) § 5F1.5(a)(1) (1998). The restriction must be

“reasonably necessary to protect the public because there is reason

to believe that, absent such restriction, the defendant will

continue to engage in unlawful conduct similar to that for which

the defendant was convicted.” USSG § 5F1.5(a)(2). The condition

shall be imposed for the minimum time and to the minimum extent

necessary to protect the public. USSG § 5F1.5(b).
- 4 -

The district court did not abuse its discretion by

imposing the special condition of supervised release prohibiting

Cardine from employment in the equestrian industry. Cardine pled

guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud and swindle of

livestock in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371

(2000). Cardine’s employment in the equestrian industry allowed

him to accomplish his crime and thus bore a reasonably direct

relationship to the offense of conviction. The district court

considered but rejected Cardine’s assertion that a complete ban

from the industry was not reasonably necessary to protect the

public from conduct similar to that for which he was convicted. We

have reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not

err or abuse its discretion in this ruling.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order

modifying Cardine’s criminal judgment. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED