United States v. Jeremy Walton

MEMORANDUM

Jeremy Walton appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges four conditions of supervised release imposed as part of his sentence following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Walton contends that the district court erred by imposing certain conditions of supervised release. We review this contention for plain error, see United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 928 (9th Cir.2008), and find none. The reasons for the conditions prohibiting contact with minors, mandating sex offender treatment, and prohibiting him from possessing or viewing pornography are apparent from the record. See id. at 924 . Because a condition implicating a significant liberty interest requires an explanation, Walton is correct that the district court should have made special findings when imposing the condition prohibiting him from contacting his minor child and the child’s family without prior approval from his probation officer. See United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1005 (9th Cir.2008). However, in light of Walton’s earlier express agreement to this condition, he has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that…