N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M IC HAEL M IR

ANDO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 23-338

D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00215-PA-1 M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

8, 2024 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : IKUTA a

nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LIB URDI, Distric t Judge . *** M ic ha e l M irando a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of a stipula tion by and be twe e n M irando a

nd the gove rnm e nt re que s ting thedistric t c o urt to m odify 

# F IL ED JUL 10 2024 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honora

ble M ic ha e l T. Liburdi, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa t ion.M irando’ s te rm s of supe rvise d re le a se by striking Supplem e nta l C o ndition 4. Tha t c ondition re quire d M irando to “ a llow the probation offic e r to insta ll c om pute r m onitoring softwa

re on a ny c om pute r” he use s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3742, a

nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing M irando’ s re que st to re m o ve Supple m e nta l C ondition 4. A se nte nc ing c ourt e njoy s wide disc re tion in de te rm i ning whe the r to re m ove or m odify c onditions of supe rvise d re le a se . Unite d State s v . Ponc e , 22 F.4th 1045, 1047 (9th C ir. 2022). Eve n though thedistric t c ourt did not im

pose Supple m e nta l C ondition 4 whe n it initia lly se nte nc e d M irando, a

se nte nc ing c ourt m ay

m odify the te rm s of supe rvise d re le a se and im pose a d ditiona l c onditions a fte r the initia l se nte nc ing, “ e ve n a bse nt a showing of c ha nge d c irc um s ta

nc e s.” Unite d State

s v . Bainbridge , 746 F.3d 943, 950 (9th C ir. 2014). And e ve n though the probation offic e re c om

m e n d e d re m o va l of Supple m e nta l C ondition 4 be c a use it wa s duplic at ive of a nothe r c ondition a

nd be c a use M irando ha d displa

y e d good be havior whileon supe rvise d re le a s e , it is the distric t c o urt, not the probat ion offic e , tha t de c ide s “ the nature or e xte n t of the punishm e nt im

pose d upon a

probatione r.” Unite d State s v . Ste phe n s , 424 F.3d 876, 881 (9th C ir. 2005) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Prude n , 398 F.3d 241, 250 (3d C ir. 2005)). 2The distric t c ourt provide d a n a d e quate e xpla

nation for its order de ny ing the m odific ation re que st in a

subse que nt orde r. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3583(d). The“ distric t c ourt’ s vie w of the e vide nc e [wa s] pla usible in light of the

re c ord vie w e d in its e ntire t y ,” and thus wa s not c le arly e rrone ous. Unite d State

s v . Re y e s , 772 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting Unite d State s v . Gust , 405 F.3d 797, 799 (9th C ir. 2005)). Although the distric t c ourt e rrone o usly sta te d tha t M irando wa s se e k ing to re m ove Supple m e nta l C ondition 3 a s we ll a s Supple m e nta l C ondition 4, this missta

t e m e nt wa s ha

rm l e ss. M irando c o nc e de s tha t the distric t c ourt a c c urate ly

diffe re ntia

te d be twe e n the two c onditions, a nd the distric t c ourt’ s ana ly sis a m ply supporte d its de te rm ination tha t Supple m e nta l C ondition 4 re m a ine d ne c e s sa

ry to a c hie ve the goa ls of de te rre nc e and prote c tion of thepublic . 1 B e c a use the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion, we c onc l ude the re are no “ unusua l c irc um sta

n c e s” wa rranting re a s signm e nt of this matte r to a diffe re nt distric t judge . Disability

Rts. Mont., Inc . v . Batista , 930 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th C ir. 2019).AFFIRM E D.

1 M irando sta

te s he is not a

rguing tha

t Supple m e nta l C ondition 4 wa s ille g a lly im pose d , so we do not a ddre s s this issue . 3