FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30210
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00418-JCC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BRIAN ROBERT GILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 9, 2014**
Seattle, Washington
Before: ALARCÓN, KLEINFELD, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Brian Gill appeals the district court’s order continuing the terms of his
supervised release without modification. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gill challenges a condition of his supervised release that requires him to
abide by all rules and lifestyle restrictions imposed by his therapist as part of his
sexual-deviancy treatment program. He argues, as he did below, that this condition
impermissibly delegates the district court’s judicial authority to Gill’s therapist.
Gill, however, raised this challenge for the first time in a memorandum
asking the district court to modify the conditions of his supervised release.
Congress has “limited the manner in which a defendant may challenge the legality
of a supervised release condition to: (1) direct appeal, (2) § 2255 habeas corpus
relief, and (3) . . . [a] Rule 35(c) motion.” United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043,
1044 (9th Cir. 2002).
A district court may not modify the conditions of a defendant’s supervised
release based on the defendant’s claim that a certain condition is illegal. Id.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in ordering Gill’s supervised release to
continue without modification.
AFFIRMED.
2