FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50327
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00920-JAK-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES WILLIAM MALONE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 4, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District
Judge.**
Defendant-Appellant Charles Malone pled guilty to one count of distributing
crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii) and was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 114 months. On appeal Malone argues that
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
the district court erred in imposing a special condition of supervised release
preventing Malone from associating with anyone known to him to be a member of
the Rollin’ 40’s Crips gang. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review Malone’s contention that the district court failed to comply with Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) de novo, United States v. Herrera-Rojas,
243 F.3d 1139, 1142 (9th Cir. 2001), and the district court’s imposition of
conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion, United States v. Wolf
Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
Malone’s objections that the United States failed to meet its burden of proof
with regard to whether Malone was a member of the Rollin’ 40’s Crips were likely
not “specific factual objections” sufficient to trigger the district court’s obligation
to rule on the dispute under Rule 32(i)(3)(B). See United States v. Stoterau, 524
F.3d 988, 1011 (9th Cir. 2008). Rather, Malone appeared to object primarily to the
sufficiency of the evidence rather than “deny[ing] that the police reports contained
the information alleged in the PSR or that the information was factually
inaccurate.” Id. at 1012; see also United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1188-
89 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that Rule 32 was not implicated where “Grajeda did not
controvert the accuracy of the PSR or argue that he had not been convicted of the
2
listed crimes” but instead argued that the government had failed to meet its burden
of proving the prior convictions).
Given the nature of Malone’s objections, the district court’s imposition of
the gang association condition was sufficiently “express or explicit” to comply
with Rule 32. United States v. Doe, 705 F.3d 1134, 1153 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Doe, 488 F.3d 1154, 1158-59
(9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the district court may comply with Rule 32 by
expressly adopting the position of either party to the dispute, provided that by
adopting the particular position the court necessarily resolved the objection at
issue). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
gang association condition, which was reasonably related to the statutory goals of
supervised release and involved no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably
necessary to achieve those goals. See United States v. Napulou, 593 F.3d 1041,
1044 (9th Cir. 2010).
The district court was not required to make specific determinations under
United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5F1.5(a) because the government explicitly
stated that the gang association condition will not prevent Malone from working as
a counselor with at-risk youth, even if those youth happen to be gang members.
Therefore, the condition does not constitute an occupational restriction. See
3
Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U.S. 4, 4 (1971); United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d
858, 866-67 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
4