United States v. 2020-12-07 | 20-30046 | USA V. JASON GARCIA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JASON LOWAL GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-30046

D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00260-DCN-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Jason Lowal Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges two special conditions of supervised release imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*
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

DEC 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 20-30046
Garcia challenges the special conditions of supervised release that require
him to participate in a sexual deviancy evaluation and submit to polygraph testing
as part of the evaluation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
these conditions, which are reasonably related to the goals of deterrence and
protecting the public and involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is
reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2); United States v. Hohag,
893 F.3d 1190, 1192, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review and
holding that assessment and polygraph conditions were justified by risks indicated
by failure to register and imposed minimal burden on liberty). Although Garcia’s
only conviction for a sexual offense against a minor occurred in 2000, the district
court’s imposition of the conditions is supported by Garcia’s two recent
convictions for failing to register as a sex offender and lack of any previous
assessment or treatment. See Hohag, 893 F.3d at 1193-94 (“[W]hen some recent
event suggests that a defendant still poses a risk of engaging in sexual misconduct,
there exists a greater need for a condition meant to address a defendant’s history of
sexual misconduct.”). Moreover, contrary to Garcia’s contention, the record
reflects that the district court considered Garcia’s arguments and adequately
explained its reasons for imposing the challenged conditions. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Garcia’s motion to stay the imposition of the challenged conditions pending

3 20-30046
appeal is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.