Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio LOPEZ-MURILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-23
Citations: 623 F. App'x 352
Docket Number: No. 14-50452
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio LOPEZ-MURILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 352–353

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio LOPEZ-MURILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50452.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 23, 2015.
Jonathan Adam Alexander, Special Assistant U.S., Daniel James O’Brien, Esq., Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrea Renee St. Julian, Esq. Andrea St. Julian, San Diego, CA, Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ignacio Lopez-Murillo appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges a condition of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bringing aliens to the United States for private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lopez-Murillo challenges the condition of supervised release requiring him to participate in outpatient substance abuse treatment as directed by probation. We review for plain error, see United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir.2003), and find none. Contrary to Lopez-Murillo's contention, the condition is reasonably related to the goal of providing correctional treatment in light of his undisputed history of marijuana use. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1); Rearden, 349 F.3d at 619.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.