United States v. Joseph Hedderich

MEMORANDUM

Joseph Lee Hedderich appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 144-month sentence, lifetime term of supervised release, and special residency condition imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for use of a facility of interstate commerce to attempt to induce a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm, but remand to correct a clerical error in the judgment.

Hedderich contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his policy arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Hedde-rich’s policy-based arguments and was aware of its discretion to vary from the Guidelines. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir.2011).

Hedderich next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately its reasons for imposing a lifetime term of supervised release and special residency condition. We also review this claim for plain error. See Valencia-Barragan,…