USA V. MIKHAIL FELDMAN, No. 14-50047 (9th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 30 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-50047 D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01971-W v. MEMORANDUM* MIKHAIL L. FELDMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 23, 2014** Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Mikhail L. Feldman appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges a special condition of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Feldman contends that the district court erred by imposing a special * 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). condition of supervised release that requires him to submit to warrantless searches without reasonable or probable cause. Specifically, he argues that (1) the court improperly imposed the condition on the basis of a blanket policy rather than Feldman s individual circumstances, (2) the court failed to respond to Feldman s arguments against the condition, and (3) the record did not support the need for the condition. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2007), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Feldman s arguments and adequately explained why the condition was necessary in this case. Morever, in light of Feldman s multiple violations of supervised release, the condition is reasonably supported by the need for deterrence and protection of the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Under these circumstances, the search condition cannot be said to be an abuse of discretion. See Betts, 511 F.3d at 876. AFFIRMED. 2 14-50047

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.