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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. STEPHEN O’ NEAL WASHINGTON, Jr., a .k.a . Ste ve n O’ Ne a l W a shington, Jr., a .k.a . Ste ve n O’ Ne a l W a shington, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10102

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-50016-R OS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Howa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d Se pte m

b e r 23, 2014 *** B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ste phe n O’ ne a l W a shington, Jr., a ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r



# FIL ED SEP 30 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
* * The Honora

ble Howa rd D. M c K i bbe n, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ne va da , sitting by de signa tion. *** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re voking supervise d re le a s e an d c ha lle nge s the 10-m onth c ustodia l se nte nc e , 36-

m onth te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se , a

n d a spe c ia l c ondition of supe rvise d re le a se im pose d upon re voc ation. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm in pa rt, va c ate in pa

rt, a nd re m a nd. W a shington c onte nds tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d by

fa i ling to e xpla i n the se nte nc e a de quat e ly

and to a ddre ss his nonfrivolous a rgum e nts for a

nonGuide line s se nte nc e . W e re vie w for pla i n e rror, s e eUnite d State s v . Hammons , 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th C ir. 2009), a nd find none . Se eUnite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ) (a de quate e xpla

nation m ay be infe rre d from the re c o rd a s a

whole ). W a shington also c ha lle nge s a spe c i a l c ondition of supe rvise d re l e a se . His c ha lle nge is only

to the writte n orde r, whic h prohibits him “ from m a king m a jor purc ha se s, inc urring ne w fina nc ia l obliga

tions, or e nte ring into fina n c i a l c ontra c ts without the

prior a pprova l of the probat ion offic e r.” W a shington a rgue s tha t this c ondition is unc o nstitutiona lly va gue and insuffic ie ntly re late d to the18 U.S.C . § 3583(d) se nte nc ing fa c tors. B e c a use it is not c le ar from

the orde r whic h transa c tions a

re subje c t to the c ondition, the

c ondition is im

pe rm issibly va gue . Se e Unite d State s v . Guagliardo , 278 F.3d 868, 872 (9th C ir. 2002) (c onditions of supe rvise d re le a se m

ust be “ suffic ie ntly

c le a r to inform [de fe nda

nt] of what
1 4 - 1 0 1 0 2 2c onduc t will re sult in his be ing re turne d to prison” ). W e , the re fore , va c ate spe c ia l

supe rvise d re le a se c ondition #4. We re m and for the distric t c o urt to re e nte r judgm e nt without this c ondition or to hold a re se nte nc ing a t whic h the c ourt m ay re im pose the c ondition mo re na rrowly . If the c ourt re im

pose s the c ondition, it sha l l sta te with gre ate r partic ula

rity whic h purc ha se s , fina

nc i a l obliga

t ions, a nd fina nc ia l c o ntra c ts a

re c ove re d by

the c ondition a

nd why the c ondition is ne c e ssa

ry in this c a se . AFFIRM E D in par t; V ACAT E D in par t; and RE M ANDE D.

1 4 - 1 0 1 0 2 3