USA V. TIMOTHY EHLERS, No. 13-30179 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 30 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-30179 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00034-RSM v. MEMORANDUM* TIMOTHY WAYNE EHLERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2013** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Timothy Wayne Ehlers appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the condition of supervised release requiring him to participate in a mental health program. 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 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). Ehlers contends that the district court abused its discretion and imposed a substantively unreasonable supervised release condition because he has not been diagnosed with a mental illness, the only evidence regarding his mental health was anecdotal, his offense lacked any mental health component, and his substance abuse problem provides an alternate explanation for his behavior. We disagree. The record supports the district court s conclusion that Ehlers may benefit from a mental health program. The condition is reasonably related to the goals of protecting the public and providing Ehlers with necessary treatment, involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to achieve those goals, and is consistent with the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(5). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); United States v. Lopez, 258 F.3d 1053, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2001). AFFIRMED. 2 13-30179

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.