From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Vargas-Perez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 27, 2014
581 F. App'x 621 (9th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

Submitted June 25, 2014

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00760-PGR. Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding.

For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Anthony William Church, Attorney, Uspx - Office of The U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ.

For Eduardo Vargas-Perez, Defendant - Appellant: Kathleen Erin Brody, Attorney, Osborn Maledon, P.A., Phoenix, AZ.


Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Eduardo Vargas-Perez appeals from the district court's order revoking supervised release and challenges the imposition of two conditions of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vargas-Perez contends that the district court erred by imposing two standard conditions of supervised release requiring that Vargas-Perez " not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered," and " not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity [or] with any person convicted of a felony." He argues that the conditions violate 18 U.S.C. § 3583 and due process because they lack an explicit mens rea requirement. We review for plain error, see United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir. 2008), and find none. Vargas-Perez's challenge fails because prohibited criminal acts are presumed to require an element of mens rea. See id. at 750 (upholding a nonassociation condition after construing it to require knowing association with the prohibited group); see also United States v. Phillips, 704 F.3d 754, 768 (9th Cir. 2012) (supervised release condition restricting a defendant from frequenting places where illegal drugs are used or sold does not violate due process because a reasonable person would understand that the condition prohibits knowingly going to a place where drugs are illegally used or sold).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Vargas-Perez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 27, 2014
581 F. App'x 621 (9th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

United States v. Vargas-Perez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDUARDO VARGAS-PEREZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 27, 2014

Citations

581 F. App'x 621 (9th Cir. 2014)