22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4af,MEMORANDUM Richard Eugene Lonebear appeals from the lifetime term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 (a) and 2244(a)(5). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Lonebear contends that the district court’s imposition of a lifetime term of supervised release constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and is substantively unreasonable. The imposition of a lifetime term of supervised release is not unconstitutionally disproportionate given the circumstances of the case. See United States v. Williams, 636 F.3d 1229, 1232-1233 (9th Cir.2011). The sentence is also substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir.2008); see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b) (policy statement) (recommending the maximum term of supervised release if the offense of conviction is a sex offense). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4dc,

MEMORANDUM

Richard Eugene Lonebear appeals from the lifetime term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 (a) and 2244(a)(5). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Lonebear contends that the district court’s imposition of a lifetime term of supervised release constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and is substantively unreasonable. The imposition of a lifetime term of supervised release is not unconstitutionally disproportionate given the circumstances of the case. See United States v. Williams, 636 F.3d 1229, 1232-1233 (9th Cir.2011). The sentence is also substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a). See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 922-23 (9th Cir.2008); see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b) (policy statement) (recommending the maximum term of supervised release if the offense of conviction is a sex offense).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.