Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Archie LORETO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-20
Citations: 466 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 11-10060
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Archie LORETO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 657–658

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Archie LORETO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10060.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 20, 2012.
Robert Andrew Fellrath, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Nathan Donlon Leonardo, Leonardo Law Offices, PLLC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, 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
Luis Archie Loreto appeals from a condition of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(vii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Loreto contends that the district court erred by imposing a special condition of supervised release requiring him to submit, at the direction of his probation officer, to a psychosexual evaluation, which may include a polygraph examination. Loreto argues that the condition is not reasonably related to his conviction or his history and characteristics. The district court did not abuse its discretion, as the challenged condition is reasonably related to the goals of deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation; and does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.