Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark BENDER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-20
Citations: 671 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 16-50021
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark BENDER, Defendant-Appellant,
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark BENDER, Defendant-Appellant,
No. 16-50021
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 20, 2016
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Julius J. Nam, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Mark Bender appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges a special condition of supervised release imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, United States v. Rudd, 662 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011), and we vacate and remand for resentencing.
Bender challenges the special condition of supervised release that prohibits him from having any contact with minors other than family members, with the exception of frequenting locations, such as restaurants, that may employ minors. The district court did not explain its reasons for imposing this condition, nor are its reasons apparent from the record. See United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873, 890 (9th Cir. 2012). The only allegations in the record that referenced a minor were contained in a dismissed charge that Bender specifically disputed and that the district court expressly declined to consider. Accordingly,' we remand to the district court to either vacate the condition or provide sufficient justification for it. See id. at 892.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.