Opinion
No. 18-30148
11-01-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEPHAN DUANE KOROL-LOCKE, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00062-BMM-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 24, 2019 Portland, Oregon Before: FARRIS, BEA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
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). --------
Waiver must be knowing and voluntary. United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1152-53 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921, 922 (9th Cir. 2004)). The record would support a finding that Korol-Locke's waiver was both, but in spite of that, we review his argument that a probation condition prevents privileged conversations with counsel. Even if Korol-Locke did not waive the right to appeal the denial of his motion to modify or clarify his probation condition, the ordered monitoring technique does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary for the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C § 3553(a)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b); see also United States v. Wong, 687 Fed.App'x 593, 596 (9th Cir. 2017); United States v. Cuneo, 472 Fed.App'x 648, 649 (9th Cir. 2012). Nothing in the ordered monitoring technique violates a constitutional right or runs afoul of the Electronic Surveillance Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq.
AFFIRMED.