USA V. MIGUEL ANDRADE, No. 19-50063 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 20 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-50063 D.C. No. 8:09-cr-00243-CJC-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MIGUEL RAMON ANDRADE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Miguel Ramon Andrade appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges one condition of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Andrade challenges the special condition of supervised release that prohibits * 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). him from “possess[ing] or view[ing] any materials such as videos, magazines, photographs, computer images or that matter that depicts ‘actually sexually explicit conduct’ involving adults as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2257(h)(1).” Contrary to Andrade’s assertion, this condition does not prohibit him from engaging in all sexual conduct, but rather, appropriately restricts his access to materials depicting sexually explicit conduct involving adults. See United States v. Ochoa, 932 F.3d 866, 870-71 (9th Cir. 2019). Moreover, in light of the circumstances of this case, the condition is reasonably related to the protection of the public and Andrade’s rehabilitation, and the condition involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED. 2 19-50063
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.
