United States of America v. Ivan Lopez

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IVAN LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50372
D.C. No. 5:10-cr-00065-VAP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ivan Lopez appeals from a special condition of supervised release imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual
conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
SEP 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50372 2
Lopez contends that the district court plainly erred by imposing a 2,000-foot
residency restriction in lieu of the “direct view” restriction agreed to by the parties
in the plea agreement. Although the district court failed to articulate the reason for
its specific selection of the 2,000-foot restriction recommended by the Probation
Office, other than to note that the change addressed vagueness concerns, Lopez
acquiesced in the modification at the hearing. Given Lopez’s history and the crime
to which he pled guilty, imposition of the restriction was not plain error. See
18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1118-19 (9th Cir.
2010).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --