United States v. Stacy Johnson
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Stacy Johnson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the resti tution order imposed as a special condition of supervised release, following her jury-trial conviction for embezzlement, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501 (c), and falsifying union records, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 489 (c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Johnson challenges the special condition of supervised release which requires that she pay $6,000 in restitution at a rate of $500 per month. Johnson contends that this condition is greater than necessary and unreasonable in light of her financial circumstances. We review for abuse • of discretion, see United States v. Batson, 608 F.3d 630, 632-33 (9th Cir.2010), and find, none. The restitution order is reasonably related to the goals of deterrence and providing just punishment, and it does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3563 (b)(2) and 3583(c), (d); Batson, 608 F.3d at 636-37 (district court may order, as a condition of supervised release, restitution in the amount of loss caused by the offense of conviction).