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. DARR EN DAVID C HAKER , AKA Darre n De l Ne ro, AKA Da rrin Sha c kle r, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-50138

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-07012-LAB -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DARR EN DAVID C HAKER , AKA Darre n De l Ne ro, AKA Da rrin Sha c kle r, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-50193

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-07012-LAB -1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED JUL 06 2016 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.Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 10, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI a

nd WARD LAW , C i rc uit Judge s a nd KOR M AN, ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. Darre n Da

vid C hake r a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s re voc at ion of supe rvise d
re le a se and the se nte n c e im pose d upon re voc at ion. W e have jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re ve rse the re voc ation of C hake r’ s supe rvise d re le a se and
va c a te the se nte nc e im

pose d
. The re le va

nt supe rvise d re le a se c ondition provide s tha t C hake r “ m a

y not sta lk a n d/or ha ra ss othe r individuals, to inc l ude , but not lim i te d to, posting pe

rsona l inform a t ion of othe rs or de fam ing a pe rson’ s c ha ra c t e r on the inte rne t .” C hake r’ s blog post, which c la im e d tha t form e r polic e inve stiga

tor Le e sa Fa z a l “ wa s forc e d out of the La s Ve ga s M e tro Polic e De pa rtm e nt,” doe s not qua l ify a s ha ra ssm e nt. Am ong othe r issue s, the blog post wa s not dire c te d at Fa z a l, a nd the gove rnm e nt fa ile d to prove tha

t C h ake r inte nde d to ha

ra ss Fa z a l. Se e Unite d State s v . Gnirk e , 775 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th C ir. 2015) (“ [C ] onditions of supe rvise d re le a s e are re a d to re quire an e le m e nt of m e ns re a .” ) (c ita tion omi tte d ); Ha

ra ssm e nt, B la c k’ s La

w Dic tiona ry (10th e d. 2014). Thegove rnm e n t a l so fa ile d to prove that C hake r’ s blog post sa

tisfie d the e le m e n ts of de fam ation, inc luding fa lsity an d a c tua l m a lic e . Se e N .Y. Time s C o. v . Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254 279–80 (1964); De fam ation, B la c k’ s

2Law Dic tiona ry (10th e d. 2014). W e the re fore c onc lude tha t C hake r did not viola te the spe c ia l c ondition of supe rvise d re l e a se . B e c a use we re ve rse the re voc at ion of C h ake r’ s supe rvise d re le a se on the se grounds, we ne e d not re a c h his c onstitutiona l a rgum e n ts. Sim ila

rly , be c a use we va c a te C hak e r’ s se n te nc e for the re ve rse d re v oc ation, se eUnite d State s v . More l and , 622 F.3d 1147, 1173 (9th C ir. 2010), we ne e d not a ddre s s C hake r’ s c ha lle nge s to the ne wly

im pose d c onditions of supe

rvise d re le a se , whic h we re only im pose d a s a

re s ult of tha

t re ve rse d re voc ation. RE V E RSE D; V ACAT E D.

3