Case Name: Edward C. TADEFA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-30
Citations: 333 F. App'x 274
Docket Number: No. 07-56043
Parties: Edward C. TADEFA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
Edward C. TADEFA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-56043.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Sept. 30, 2009.
Edward C. Tadefa, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Matthew D. Umhofer, Daniel B. Levin, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Edward C. Tadefa appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habe-as corpus. We dismiss.
Tadefa contends that the special mental health aftercare requirement imposed as a condition of his release violates his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Because this issue is not yet ripe for review, we dismiss. See United States v. Streich, 560 F.3d 926, 931-32 (9th Cir.2009); Cf. United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir.2005).
Tadefa's motion to supplement the record is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 10(e); see also Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 351 (9th Cir.1987) (recognizing that this court construes Rule 10(e) narrowly and has held that "normally the reviewing court will not supplement the record on appeal with material not considered by the trial court.").
Tadefa's motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.