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:T460,MEMORANDUM Luis Archie Loreto appeals from a condition of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(vii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Loreto contends that the district court erred by imposing a special condition of supervised release requiring him to submit, at the direction of his probation officer, to a psychosexual evaluation, which may include a polygraph examination. Loreto argues that the condition is not reasonably related to his conviction or his history and characteristics. The district court did not abuse its discretion, as the challenged condition is reasonably related to the goals of deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation; and does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (d); United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir.2003). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T48d,

MEMORANDUM

Luis Archie Loreto appeals from a condition of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(vii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Loreto contends that the district court erred by imposing a special condition of supervised release requiring him to submit, at the direction of his probation officer, to a psychosexual evaluation, which may include a polygraph examination. Loreto argues that the condition is not reasonably related to his conviction or his history and characteristics. The district court did not abuse its discretion, as the challenged condition is reasonably related to the goals of deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation; and does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (d); United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

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