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 ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R ONALD R

ANDOLF JOHNSON, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30079

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00018-SEH-1 ORDER *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Sam E. Ha ddon, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 12, 2014 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N, TALLM AN, a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt R ona ld R andolf Johnson a ppe a ls the twe lve -m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty ple a to one c ount of a c quiring or obtaining posse ssion of a c o ntrolle d substa

nc e by de c e ption in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 843(a)(3). He



# FIL ED D EC 18 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 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).furthe r c ha lle nge s the c ondition of supe rvise d re le a se im

p ose d a s pa

rt of his se nte nc e re quiring tha

t he not posse ss a

c o ntrolle d substa

nc e unde r any c irc um s ta nc e s , e ve n with a

doc t or’ s pre s c ription. In his ple a

a gre e m e nt , Johnson waive d his right “to a p pe a l the re a s ona ble ne s s of the se nte nc e , inc luding c onditions of proba tion or supervise d re le a se , if the de fe nda

nt ha s no obje c tion to the c a lc ulation of theguide line s a nd the s e nte n c e im

pose d is within or be low the range provide d for by tha t c a lc ulat ion.” W e re c ogniz e tha t the distinc tion be twe e n a n obje c t ion to the c a lc ulat ion of the Guide l ine s ra nge and a re q ue s t for a downwa rd de pa rture from that ran ge m a y not a lwa y s be c le ar to de fe nda

nts. In light of pote

ntia l am b iguity , we sugge st tha

t the Unite d State s Attorne y ’ s Offic e c onside r using m ore pre c ise la ngua ge in its a

ppe lla te wa i v e rs re ga

rding this distinc

t ion. Howe ve r, in this c a se Johnson wa s spe c ific a lly

a dm onishe d tha

t his Guide line s ra

nge wa s six to twe lve m onths’ im

prisonm e nt, a

nd he did not obje c t to this c a lc ulation. The se nte nc e im pose d wa s within the

c a lc ulate d Guide line s ra

nge , a nd thus Johnson una m biguously wa ive d the right to bring this a ppe a l. The wa ive r, howe v e r, doe s not pre c l ude Johnson from bringing a n a ppe a l on the b a sis tha

t the se nte n c e “ e xc e e ds the pe rm issiblesta tutory pe na lty for the c rim e or viola te s the C onstitution.” Unite d State s v . Bible r , 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th C ir. 1 4 - 3 0 0 7 9 22007). Johnson a rgue s tha t the c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se prohibiting him from posse ssing la

wfully pre sc ribe d c o ntrolle d substa nc e s viola t e s his c onstitutiona

l right to due

proc e ss be c a

use it im p ose s a burde n on a signific ant libe rty inte re st without a

n “ e xplic it, spe c ific finding”on a “ m e dic a lly -inform e d re c o rd” tha

t the c ondition is re a sona

bly ne c e ssa ry . Se eUnite d State

s v . W illiams , 356 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004). W e ne e d not re a c h this a rgum e nt, howe ve r, be c a use the ora lly im

p ose d c ondition wa s c orre c te d by the writte n judgm e nt, whic h a llows Johnson to posse ss la wfully pre sc ribe d m e dic ation. Se eUnite d State s v . C olac e , 126 F.3d 1229, 1231 (9th C ir. 1997) (c iting Fe d. R . C rim . P. 35(c ), pre s e ntly c o difie d at Fe d. R . C rim . P. 35(a )). DISM ISSED.

1 4 - 3 0 0 7 9 3