United States v. Alan Nixon

MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant Alan David Nixon appeals the district court’s refusal to modify his conditions of probation to allow him to use marijuana for medical purposes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we now affirm.

Nixon argues that the district court violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and deprived him of due process by not allowing him to use marijuana for medical purposes during his probationary term. Because Nixon did not object on these grounds in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that forfeited challenges to conditions of supervised release are reviewed for plain error).

Nixon bears the burden of demonstrating plain error, United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), and he has not met that burden. Nixon does not provide any meaningful argument to support his argument that the probation condition violates due process, so that argument is waived. See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 925 (9th Cir. 2008); accord Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). Any possible construction of Nixon’s…