Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yacov YIDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-22
Citations: 444 F. App'x 965
Docket Number: No. 08-10222
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yacov YIDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 965–966

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yacov YIDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10222.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 22, 2011.
James T. Chou, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Warrington Samuel Parker, III, Counsel, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Yacov Yida appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 121-month sentence for conspiracy to import MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963; importation of MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952; and smuggling, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545. We affirm.
Yida contends the case should be remanded with instructions to delete from the written judgment the condition that Yida "submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and two periodic drug tests thereafter" because he was not orally advised of the condition at sentencing. We disagree. The imposition of this statutorily-mandated condition of supervised release is deemed to be implicit in an oral sentence imposing supervised release, and therefore the condition was properly included in the written judgment. See United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042-43 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.