NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10056
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
3:13-cr-00753-EMC-1
v.
IVAN SPEED, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HOYT,*** District
Judge.
Appellant Ivan Speed was convicted of selling cocaine base within 1,000
feet of a school and now appeals several conditions of supervised release imposed
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Kenneth M. Hoyt, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
by the district court. When a defendant does not object to conditions of supervised
release in the district court, we review the imposition of conditions for plain error.
United States v. Jeremiah, 493 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2007). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.
On appeal, Speed challenges the payment provision of his treatment
requirements, a prohibition on alcohol consumption, and a ban on frequenting
gambling establishments. We hold that the district court did not commit plain
error by requiring Speed to contribute to the cost of treatment, subject to the
discretion of his probation officer. See United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858,
864–65 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, based on Speed’s history of drug use and drug-
related offenses, the district court’s imposition of alcohol-related conditions was
not plain error. United States v. Sales, 476 F.3d 732, 735–36 (9th Cir. 2007); see
also United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[I]t is hardly a
secret that there is a tie between drug abuse and alcohol abuse.”). Lastly, the
condition relating to frequenting gambling establishments is not vague or
overbroad, and directly relates to Speed’s rehabilitation. United States v. Phillips,
704 F.3d 754, 767–68 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
2