United States of America v. Thomas M. Johnson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
THOMAS M. JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50043
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00890-RGK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Thomas M. Johnson appeals six special conditions of supervised release,
imposed following revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Johnson contends that the district court erred in imposing the special
* 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).
FILED
FEB 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50043
conditions of supervised release, which he argues unreasonably restrict his
property and liberty interests, limit his employability, and are overbroad.
Conditions of supervised release are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872, 874 (9th Cir. 2007).
Johnson’s crimes of conviction, and the nature of his supervised release
violations, justified imposition of the additional conditions. In light of the
significant amount Johnson owes in restitution, the first challenged condition is
reasonable. See id. at 876-77 (district court may order that part or all of windfall
monies be applied to restitution as long as the court determines amount that will be
applied). Contrary to Johnson’s contention, the four employment-related
conditions are not overbroad and are reasonably necessary to protect the public
from future acts of financial fraud by Johnson. See id. at 874-75. Finally, the
business records condition is reasonably related to the circumstances of Johnson’s
conviction and to the goals of deterrence and protection of the public. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1); United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2008).
Because the conditions imposed by the district court are reasonably related to
deterrence and the protection of the public, and do not involve a greater
deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing them. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); Daniels, 541 F.3d at 924.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --