Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel LIPTAK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-28
Citations: 279 F. App'x 222
Docket Number: No. 07-4671
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel LIPTAK, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 222–223

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel LIPTAK, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-4671.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2008.
Decided: May 28, 2008.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Randy V. Cargill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Liptak appeals the district court's order modifying the terms of his supervised release to include a requirement that he participate in a sex offender assessment and treatment deemed necessary as a result of the assessment. A district court's imposition of special conditions of supervised release is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Dotson, 324 F.3d 256, 259 (4th Cir.2003). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the decision to modify the terms of Liptak's release was a proper exercise of discretion. Accordingly, we grant the motion for leave to file a supplemental brief and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Liptak, No. 7:07-cr-00009-gec, 2007 WL 1795748 (W.D. Va. June 20, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.