United States v. Jonathan Roarke

MEMORANDUM

Jonathan Roarke appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the lifetime term of supervised release and one condition of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

Roarke contends that the district court did not adequately explain why a lifetime term of supervised release was necessary. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103 , 1108 n. 3 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered the parties’ arguments and the probation officer’s recommendation before imposing the Guidelines-recommended term; thus, the court did not err. See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir.2008).

Roarke also contends that the lifetime term of supervised release is inconsistent with legislative history of the supervised release statute and otherwise substantively unreasonable. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Roarke’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51…