T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. SA LV A TO RE RI CH A RD C AC C AV AL L O, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 35209 D . C . N o s . 9 : 1 1 - c v - 0 0 0 3 5 - D WM

9 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 0 6 7 - D WM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na D ona l d W . M ol l oy , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry7, 2013 ** S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: F IS H E R , G O U L D , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Sa l v a t o r e Ca c c a v a l l o ap p e a l s th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED FEB 14 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

O n D e c e m b e r2 2 , 2 0 1 1 , w e g r a n te dC a c c a v a llo ac e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility on thr e e i s s ue s : “ ( 1) w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d bypr ohi bi t i ng appe l l a ntf r om po ss es si ng or usi ng m edi ca l m ar i j uana as a s peci alcond i t i on of supervi se d rel ea se ; (2) w hether the di stri ctcourterre d b y i m po si ng as a s peci al cond i t i on of supervi se d re l ea se the re qu i re m entthatappel l antre gi st eras a s ex offender; and (3) w hether c ouns e l [ f

orC a c c a va l l o] r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e byf

a i l i ng t o c ha l l e nge the spec i al cond i t i on s of s up ervi se d rel ea se ati ss ue i n cl ai m s ( 1) and (2). ” U ni ted S ta tes v . Ca c c a v a llo , N o. 11- 35209 ( 9th C i r . D e c . 22, 2011) ( or de rgr a nt i ng ce rt i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty) . T he ce rt i fi ca t e of app ea l abi l i ty s l i gh t l y m i sc hara ct er i ze d the spec i al c o n d itio n s o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t r e q u ir e th a t C a c c a v a llo r e g is te ra s as e x o f

f e n d e r . I t in s te a dr e q u ir e do n lyth a t C a c c a v a llo “c o m p lyw ith a ll appl i cabl e s t at e and fe dera l se xu al offe nd erre gi stra t i on re qu i re m ent s. ” T he di stri ct c o u rt h a s th e d is c r e tio n to im p o s e a s ac o n d itio n o f s u p e rv is e dr e le a s e th a t a d e f e n d a n t c o m p lyw ith m a n d a to ryle g a l d u tie s . U n ite d S ta tes v . W

.P .L , 641 F . 3d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 3 7 (9 th C ir. 2 0 1 1 ) ( citi n g 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )) . W e r ejec t C ac ca v allo ’s c ha l l e nge t o the c ondi t i on r e l a t i ng t o f e de r a l s e x of

f e nde rr e gi s tr a t i on. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n i m po si ng as a s peci al cond i t i on of supervi se d re l ea se thatC ac ca val l o “ shal l no tpu rc hase , po ss es s, use, di stri bu t e or a dm i ni st er3

m ar i j uana, or ob t ai n o r posse ss a m edi ca l m ar i j uana car d. ” T he fe dera l C on trol l ed S ub st ance s A ctproh i bi t s posse ss i on of m ar i j uana ou t si de of go vernm ent -app roved r e s e a r c h p r o

je c ts , U ni te d State s v . O akland Cannabis B uy e rs ’C oop. , 532 U . S . 483, 489–90 ( 2001) , a nd C ongr e s s pr ohi bi t e d a l l de f e nda nt s f r om unl a w f

ul l ypos s e s s i ng c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e s d u r in g th e irte rm s o f s u p e rv is io n , U

ni ted States v. L af

ley , 656 F . 3d 93 6, 94 1 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( ci t i ng 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(d)). T he cond i t i on that C a c c a v a llo n o t o b ta in o rp o s s e s s am e d ic a l m a r iju a n ac a r dh e lp s h im a v o id re turni ng t o h i s a dm i tt ed drug abuse. T he cond i t i on “ i nv ol ve[s ] no grea t er depri vat i on of l i berty than i s r ea sonabl y nec es saryfor the pu rposes of supervi se d re l ea se . ” U

ni te d State s v . J

e r e m i ah , 493 F . 3d 1042, 1046 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U ni ted States v. Sa les , 47 6 F . 3d 73 2, 73 5 (9th C i r. 20 07 )) . B ec ause the di stri ctcourtw as ent i t l ed t o i m po se bo th o f these spec i al co n d it io n s o f s u p er v ised re leas e, C ac ca v allo w as n o t p re ju d iced b y h is co u n se l’ s fa il u re to o b

ject to th es e s p ec ial co n d it io n s o f s u p erv ised re leas e, an dh is co u n se l’ s le g a l p e r f

o rm a n c e w a s n o t d e f

ic ie n t. W

ood v . R y an , 69 3 F . 3d 11 04 , 11 18 (9th C i r. 2012) ( quot i ng Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 68 7– 88 (198 4)). AF F I R ME D.