Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee Ann FERRAVANTI-EDLIN, a.k.a. Lee Ann Ferravanti, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-28
Citations: 583 F. App'x 818
Docket Number: No. 13-50199
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee Ann FERRAVANTI-EDLIN, a.k.a. Lee Ann Ferravanti, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 818–819

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lee Ann FERRAVANTI-EDLIN, a.k.a. Lee Ann Ferravanti, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50199.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed July 28, 2014.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Vicki Chou, Assistant U.S. Attor ney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Andrew Schlesinger, Esquire, Jacobs & Schlesinger LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Lee Ann Ferravanti-Edlin appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges a special condition of supervised release imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for distribution of methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(viü)', and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ferravanti-Edlin contends that the district court proeedurally erred at sentencing by failing to explain adequately the condition of supervised release requiring that she perform 20 hours of community service per week when not employed or excused by the Probation Officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable reasons. We review for plain error, see United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir.2008), and find none. The reasons for imposing the challenged condition, including rehabilitation and prevention of recidivism, are apparent from the record. See id. at 748-49 & n. 5; United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (adequate explanation may be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.