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. TYR ONE TR

A VIS B EGAY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10272

D.C . No. 3:03-c r-00343-DGC -1 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 Dav id G. C am

pbe ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2014 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TALLM AN a

n d R AW LINSON, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd RIC E, Distric t Judge . *** 

# FIL ED FEB 21 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 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 Thom a s O. R ic e , Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.Appe lla nt Ty rone B e g a

y (“ B e ga y ” ) a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s im p osition of se ve ra l c o nditions of supe rvise d re le a se . B e c a

use B e ga y did not obje c t

to the c ha lle nge d c onditions in the distric t c o urt, we re vie w for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Blink insop , 606 F.3d 1110, 1118 (9th C ir. 2010). “ Pla in e rror is (1) a n e rror that (2) is pla in, (3) a ffe c ts substa n t ia l rights, a

nd (4) se riously

a ffe c ts the fa irne ss, inte grity or public re puta

tion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Id. at 1114 n.2. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in im posing Sta

nda rd C ondition 15, whic h re quire s B e ga

y to “ notify

third pa rtie s of risks tha

t m ay be oc c a sione d by [his] c rim ina l re c ord or pe rsona l history or c ha ra c t e ristic s .” This c ondition is

“ re a sona bly re l a te d to the goa ls of de te rre nc e , prote c tion of thepublic , or re ha bilita tion . . . ta king into a c c ount [B e ga

y ’ s] history

and pe rsona l c ha ra c te ristic s ” and involve s “ n o gre ate r de priva tion of liberty

tha n is re a sona

bly ne c e ssa ry for the purpose s of supe rvise d re l e a se .” Unite d State

s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 982 (9th C ir. 2009). Thec ondition provide s a de quate notic e of the prohibite d c onduc t a

nd the re fore doe s not viola te due proc e ss. Se e Unite d State s v . Hugs , 384 F.3d 762, 768 (9th C ir. 2004). The distric t c ourt e rre d in im posing Spe c ia l C ondition 5, which re quire s B e ga y to re fra in from

posse ssing, vie wing or othe rwise using “ m ate ria l de pic ting se xua l ly e xplic it c onduc t a s de fine d in 18 U.S.C . § 2256(2)” or “ any othe r m ate ria l 2that

is se xua l l y

stim ulating, se xua lly

orie n te d, or de e m e d to be ina ppropria t e by the probat ion offic e r and/or tre a tm e nt provide r.” W ithout furthe r c la rific ation, the te rm “ ina ppropria te ” is “ too va gue to put [B e g ay ] on notic e of what m ate ria l is prohibite d.” 1 Unite d State s v . Stote rau , 524 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th C ir. 2008). Ne ve rthe le ss, we c onc lude tha t this e rror doe s not c onstitute pla i n e rror. To e sta blish plain e rror, B e ga

y m ust “ m ake a

spe c ific showing of pre

judic e .” Unite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 734-35 (1993). At this junc ture , a ny pre judic e to B e ga y is too spe c ulat ive to sa

tisfy this re quire m e nt. B e ga

y ’ s forwa rd-looking due proc e s s c onc e rns c ould be a ddre sse d by wa y of a m otion to modify this c o n dition pursua nt to 18 U.S.C . § 3583(e )(2). M ore o ve r, “ if a nd whe n [B e ga

y ’ s ] supe rvise d re le a se is re voke d, we will e xam ine the findings to insure tha t [his] due proc e ss right to notic e of prohibite d c onduc t ha s be e n obse rve d.” Unite d State s v . Ve ga , 545 F.3d 743, 750 (9th C ir. 2008) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd quote d sourc e om i tte d). Spe c ia l C o ndition 11 re quire s B e ga y to inform his proba tion offic e r of “ a ll individuals with whom

[he ha s] an intim ate and/or rom antic and/or se xua l a nd

1 This C ourt re ve rse d the im position of a

ne arly ide ntic a l provision in U

nite d State

s v . Pre ston , 706 F.3d 1106, 1122 (9th C ir. 2013). The Pre ston c a se ha s sinc e be e n take n e n ba

nc , a n d the pa ne l’ s publishe d opinion may no longe r be c ite d a s binding pre c e de nt. Unite d State

s v . Pre ston , 727 F.3d 894 (9th C ir. 2013) (orde r granting re he aring e n ba

nc ). 3c lose e m otiona l re lationship.” B e g ay first a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt wa s re quire d to support the

im position of this c ondition with spe c ia l findings. Se e Unite d State s v . W olf C hild, 699 F.3d 1082, 1094-95 (9th C ir. 2012). This argum e nt fa ils be c a

use , unlike the c o ndition a t issue in W

olf C hild, this c ondition doe s not infringe

upon B e g ay ’ s right to intim ate a ssoc i ation. B e ga

y m ay pursue an intim a te re l a tionship with whom e ve r he ple a se s; this c ondition sim ply re quire s him to re port the re lationship to his proba tion offic e r. The Gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t this c o ndition is im

pe rm issibly

va gue , a nd we a gre e . B e c a

use “ [r] e a s ona

ble m inds c an diffe r gre atly ” a bout wha t c onstitute s an “ i ntim a te , ” “ rom antic ” or “ c lose e m otiona l” re lationship, B e ga y c annot re a s ona bly de te rm ine the bre a dth of this c o ndition. Unite d State s v . Guagliardo , 278 F.3d 868, 872 (9th C ir. 2002). He re , a ga in, howe ve r, B e ga y ha s fa ile d to e sta blish tha t this e rror rise s to the le ve l of pla in e rror, give n tha t he ha s a sta tutory re m e dy ava ila

ble t o him

unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3583(e )(2). Spe c ia l C o ndition 8 prohibits B e ga y from dire c tly or indire c tly

c onta c ting any vic tim or vic tim ’ s fam ily

m e m be r without prior writte

n pe rm ission from

his probat ion offic e r. In c o ntra st to thete rm s in Spe c ia l C onditions 5 a nd 11, the te rm s in this c ondition a

re not so va gue a s to re quire a pe rson of ordina

ry inte llige nc e to gue ss a

t the ir m e aning. Se eUnite d State s v . Solte ro , 510 F.3d 858, 4866-67 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe r c uriam ). W e are satisfie d tha t a ny pote ntia l am biguitie s in the se te rm s do not viola te B e g a y ’ s right to due proc e s s. S e eid. at 867 n.9 (“ Ge n e ra lly , supe rvise d re le a se provisions a re re a d to e xc lude ina dve rte nt viola tions.” (quoting Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 466 F.3d 272, 281 (2d C ir. 2006))). Spe c ia l C o ndition 10 prohibits B e ga y from “ trave l[ing] outsideof the c ounty and/or re se rvat ion whe re [he is] c urre ntly re giste re d a s a se x offe nde r, without prior pe rm ission of the probat ion offic e r.” “ [T] o im pose a c ondition tha

t im plic a t e s a signific ant libe rty

inte re st, the distric t c ourt m ust support its de c ision on the re c ord with e vide nc e justify ing the c ondition.” W a tson , 582 F.3d a

t 983. Fa ilure to providesuc h a

justific ation is “

pla in proc e dura l e rror.” W olf C hild, 699 F.3d at 1095. W e re m and for the distric t c ourt to provide the re quire d justific ation on the re c ord. Se eid . W e de c line the Gove rnm e nt’ s invita tion to look to the Supe rvise d R e le a se Disposition R e port for supporting ev ide nc e . Se e id. at 1092- 93. W e e xpre ss no opinion a s to the substa ntive re a sona

ble n e ss of this c ondition. As B e ga y ha s withdra

wn his c ha lle n ge to Spe c ia l C ondition 7, we do not a ddre s s it. AFFIRM E D in par t and RE V E RSE D in par t. V ACAT E D in par t and RE M A NDE D.

5Unite d

State s v . Be gay , No. 12-10272

R IC E, Distric t Judge , with whom TALLM A

N, C irc uit Judge , joins, c onc urring. I a gre e tha

t re m and is re quire d unde r Unite d State s v . W olf C hild, 699 F.3d 1082 (2012), a s a

re sult of thedistric t c ourt’ s fa ilure to providean on-the -re c ord justific a t ion for the trave l re stric tion in Spe c ia l C ondition 10. Ac c ording to W olf C hild, this wa s “ pla in proc e dura l e rror” tha t trigge rs a

n a utom atic re m and for re se nte nc ing. S

e e id. at 1095-96. I write se pa

rate ly to e xpre ss m

y vie wtha t a utom atic re m and in this c irc um s ta nc e is im prope r. W

he n a de fe nda nt fa i ls to obje c t to a

n a lle ge d e rror in the d istric t c o urt, we re vie w only for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Tapia , 665 F.3d 1059, 1061 (9th C ir. 2011). Pla in e rror is “ (1) e rror, (2) that is pla in, a nd (3) tha t a ffe c ts substa

ntia l rights.” Unite d State s v . C otton , 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). “ If a ll thre e c onditions a re m e t, [we ] m ay

the n e xe rc ise [our] disc re tion to notic e a forfe ite d e rror, but only

if (4) the e rror se riously a ffe c ts the fa irne ss, inte grity , or public re p utation of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Id. (e m

pha sis a dde d). Our a uthority to re v ie w for pla in e rror is de rive d from Fe de ra l R

u le of C rim ina l Proc e dure 52(b), whic h ve sts us with disc re t ion to re ve rse a

fina l judgm e nt ba se d upon a

n othe rwise forfe ite d e rror. Unite d State s v . Olano , 507 

# FIL ED FEB 21 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSU.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). As the Supre m e C o urt e xpla ine d in Olano , we m ay only e xe rc ise our disc re tion unde r R ule 52(b) whe n a forfe ite d e rror “ se riously a ffe c ts the fa irne ss, inte grity

or public re puta

tion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Id. at 732. Whe the r an e rror ha s se riously a ffe c te d the fa irne ss, inte grity or public re puta

tion of judic ia l proc e e d ings ne c e ssa rily turns on the fa c ts a

n d c irc um sta

nc e s of e a c h c a se . Puc k

e tt v . Unite d State

s , 556 U.S. 129, 142 (2009) (e m pha s iz ing tha

t the fourth prong of the

pla in e rror ana ly sis m

ust be “ a pplie d on a

c a se -spe c ific and fa c t -inte nsive ba sis” ). W e are the re fore forbidde n from a dopting a “

pe r se a pproa c h ” to pla in e rror re vie w, id. , a s doing so would re nde r our disc re tion to c orre c t a forfe ite d e rror illusory , Olano , 507 U.S. a t 737. I be lie ve tha

t a utom a t ic re m and upon a finding of “ pla in proc e dura l e rror” c onstitute s a

n im prope r p e r se a

pproa c h to pla in e rror re vie w. Whe n a de fe nda nt ha s not obje c te d to a

supe rvise d re le a se c ondition, e ve n one tha t “ im plic ate [s] a pa rtic u la rly signific a n t libe rty inte re st,” se e W

o lf C hild, 699 F.3d a

t 1096, wem

ust pe rform a “ c a se -spe c ific an d fa c t-inte nsive ” re vie wto de te rm ine whe the r the fa irne s s, inte grity or public re puta tion of theproc e e dings ha s be e n se riously a ffe c te d, Puc k

e tt , 556 U.S. a

t 142. R e m a

n ding a s a

m atte r of c ourse sim

ply be c a use the distric t judge did not provide an on-the -re c ord justific ation for

2im

posing thec ondition is a

n a b rogation of the disc re tion ve s te d in us by R ule 52(b). O lano , 507 U.S. a t 737. Fina lly , I note that de fe nda nts in B e ga

y ’ s position ha

ve a sta tutory re m e dy ava ila ble to the m

unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3583(e )(2). The e xiste nc e of this re m e d y c uts sha rply a g a inst a finding of plain e rror. Afte r a ll, if a de fe nda nt re m a ins fre e to pursue a m odific a t ion of a

n a lle ge dly

ille ga l c ondition in the

distric t c ourt unde r § 3583(e )(2), how c an we possibly c onc lude tha

t the fa irne ss, inte grity

or public re puta tion of the proc e e d ings ha s be e n se riously a ffe c te d? If the e rror is truly

“ pla in,” the distric t c ourt will like ly c orre c t it— or, at the ve ry

le a st, supply the m issing on-the -re c ord justific a tion for im posing thec ha lle nge d c ondition. I would e nc oura g e the full c ourt to re v isit W olf C h ild ’ s a utom atic -re ve rsa l a pproa c h in a future c a se .

3