UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4671
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICKY JOE FRASHURE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00091-IMK-JSK-1)
Submitted: December 6, 2011 Decided: April 24, 2012
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Clarksburg,
West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United
States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States
Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Joe Frashure pled guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2006). He argues on appeal that the district court
imposed improper conditions of supervised release. Finding no
error, we affirm.
The eight contested conditions of supervised release
include psycho-sexual evaluations, psychological testing,
possible sex-offender treatment, restrictions on future
employment, and other restrictions on Frashure’s contact with
minor children. Because “district courts have broad latitude to
impose conditions on supervised release,” this court reviews
such conditions only for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Armel, 585 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009). The district court
may impose any condition that is reasonably related to the
relevant statutory sentencing factors, including the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of
the defendant, the need to provide adequate deterrence, the need
to protect the public, and the need to provide the defendant
with training, medical care, or treatment. 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a); Armel, 585 F.3d at 186.
After a complete review of the record in this case and
meaningful consideration of our recent decision in United
States v. Rogers, 2012 WL 698890 (4th Cir. Mar. 6, 2012)
2
(unpublished), we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing the challenged conditions of
supervised release. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3