### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-10982 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ADAM JOSHUA CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CR-280-1

Before S T EWART, Chief Judge, and J O LLY a nd SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A jury convicted A dam Joshua Cortez of attempting to entice a minor, via t h e i nternet and a c ellular telephone, to engage in illegal sexual activity an d with c ommitting that offense while a registered s ex offender. The district court sentenced him t o a total t e rm of 360 m onths of imprisonment, t o b e f ollowed by a lifetime term of supervised released. Cortez now appeals. Cortez did not object to the special conditions of his release in the district court. Accordingly, w e w ill review Cortez’s challenges t o the c o nditions for plain U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 25, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-10982 Document: 00512419156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013No. 12-10982

error only. See United States v. Ellis , 720 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2013), petition for cert. filed(Aug 16, 2013) (No. 13-5918). On a ppeal, Cortez argues that the d i s t rict c ourt erred by imposing excessively onerous s pecial conditions of s upervis e d release in his case. He contends that the conditions i ndividually and c u mulatively are a greater deprivation of liberty than nec e s s a r y u nder 1 8 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2). Cortez specifically challenges the conditions (1) restricting his use o f computers and the internet, (2) banning him f rom contact with persons under the age of 18, (3) banning him from plac e s where children m ay frequently congregate, (4) conditionally restricting him from dating o r b efriending anyone with children under the age of 18 wh o live at home, (5) banning him from possessing sexually oriented or sexually stimulating mat e r i als of adults, (6) banning him from patronizing any place where sexually oriented or s exually stimulating materials

are available, and (7) requiring him to participate in treatment programs that may include psycho-physiological testing and prescribed medications. Cortez’s challenge t o t h e special c o ndition requiring to participate in treat m e n t programs is n ot ripe for appeal. See Ellis , 720 F.3d at 2 27. The remaining conditions i mposed in Cortez’s case are similar to those this court upheld in Ellis. See id. at 2 25-27. Cortez has offered no convincing argument to distinguish the conditions imposed in his case f rom those this court found to be appropriate in Ellis

. Given Cortez’s solicitation offense, and the p ornography f o u n d on his computer, the district court did not err, much less commit p l a i n error, in imposing those conditions. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-10982 Document: 00512419156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2013