Stolte

MEMORANDUM

Michael John Stolte appeals from the term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part.

Stolte first contends that the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for imposing a lifetime term of supervised release. Although the district court did not expressly state its reasons for imposing a lifetime term of supervised release, the record reflects that the district court appropriately considered and rejected the arguments and evidence submitted by Stolte in support of this claim. See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Stolte also contends that the length of the term is substantively unreasonable. The district court was within its discretion to conclude that a lifetime term of supervised release was necessary to protect the public and to rehabilitate Stolte. The term was not substantively unreasonable…