United States v. Michael Sharp

MEMORANDUM *

Michael James Sharp, a convicted sex offender, appeals several conditions of su *525 pervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for felon firearm possession. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

1. Sharp first contends that the conditions imposed on him were premised on disputed facts in the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) about which the court had made no findings. But, although Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 would have required the court to rule on “specific factual objections” to the PSR, United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1011 (9th Cir.2008), Sharp made no such objections. Therefore, the trial court was entitled to accept the PSR’s factual assertions as true. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(A); United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (“[T]he district court may rely on undisputed statements in the PSR at sentencing.”).

2. Sharp next objects to several special conditions imposed on him on the ground that they are excessive. This court reviews for abuse of discretion the imposition of conditions of supervision. Stoterau, 524 F.3d at…

concurring:

I concur in the result.

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30374

Plaintiff - Appellee, DC No. CR 1:09-00254 BLW

v.

MEMORANDUM *

MICHAEL JAMES SHARP,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 11, 2012 Seattle, Washington

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Michael James Sharp, a convicted sex offender, appeals several conditions

of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for felon

firearm possession. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. y 1291. We affirm

in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1. Sharp first contends that the conditions imposed on him were

premised on disputed facts in the presentence investigation report ('PSR')…