NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10158
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. CR-04-00284-PCT-DLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RONALD GENE ROSS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: M. SMITH and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and GORDON,*** District
Judge.
Defendant Ronald Gene Ross, Jr. was convicted of one count of receiving
child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). He was sentenced to 78
*
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 Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge for
the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
months in prison and a lifetime term of supervised release. In 2020, the district court
revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 72 days in custody and lifetime
supervised release. Ross challenges two conditions of supervised release related to
polygraph exams that may be conducted as part of his treatment program. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.
The government contends that this case is not ripe for review. However, “[a]
term of supervised release, even if contingent, is part and parcel of the defendant’s
sentence and can be challenged on direct appeal.” United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d
552, 557 (9th Cir. 2006). Ross asserts a facial challenge to alleged inconsistencies
in his conditions of supervised release so that challenge is ripe for review.
Ross argues that the conditions violate his Fifth Amendment rights because
he may be discharged from the required treatment program based on a valid
invocation of the Fifth Amendment during polygraph exams, and the discharge could
lead to revocation of his supervision. “We review the district court’s decision to
impose conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion.” United States v.
Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th Cir. 2008). “[W]e review de novo claims that
such conditions violate the Constitution.” United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154,
1159–60 (9th Cir. 2018).
The conditions do not violate the Fifth Amendment. “[A] defendant retains
his Fifth Amendment rights during” polygraph exams. Stoterau, 524 F.3d at 1003–
2
04 (citation omitted). The absence of language ensuring compliance with the Fifth
Amendment does not render the condition unconstitutional or otherwise infirm.
The government admits that Ross’s supervised release cannot be revoked based on
a valid invocation of the Fifth Amendment during a polygraph exam.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3