NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50413
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 8:08-cr-00174-AG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RONALD WEBSTER HENDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Webster Henderson appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the modification of his supervised release conditions to prohibit
possession of sexually explicit material. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we vacate and remand.
*
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).
Henderson contends that the district court abused its discretion by modifying
his conditions of supervised release to include a prohibition on possessing
materials that depict or describe “sexually explicit conduct” as defined in 18
U.S.C. § 2256(2). Henderson argues that the condition is overbroad and imposes
a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. In light of
Henderson’s history and the possible connection between viewing adult
pornography and viewing child pornography, the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it concluded that a restriction on Henderson’s access to adult
pornography was necessary to achieve the goals of supervised release. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Gnirke, 775 F.3d 1155, 1159, 1162-63 (9th Cir.
2015). The condition as written, however, extends to non-pornographic materials
involving adults, which is not justified by the record and deprives Henderson of
more liberty than is reasonably necessary. See Gnirke, 775 F.3d at 1166. The
district court, which did not have the benefit of Gnirke when it decided this case,
appears to have intended that the condition prohibit only possession of adult
pornography. We, therefore, vacate the condition as written and remand for the
district court to reimpose the condition consistent with Gnirke. See id.
VACATED and REMANDED with instructions.
2 14-50413