Grandchamp

MEMORANDUM ***

James Grandchamp appeals his sentence arguing that the trial court erred in fashioning the sex-offender conditions of his supervised release for four reasons: 1) the district court did not give him notice that it was contemplating these conditions; 2) the conditions do not relate to the instant offense and do not reasonably relate to the goals of deterrence, protection of the public, or rehabilitation; 3) condition four imposes a requirement that he submit to random polygraphs and a sex offender treatment program without granting him immunity, thus risking a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; and 4) condition eight is unconstitutionally vague in ordering that he not possess any pornographic, sexually-oriented or sexually-stimulating material and also ordering that he not patronize any place where such material or entertainment is available.

The court is not required to provide additional notice that it is contemplating a specific condition where the imposed condition is contemplated by the guidelines or where the presentence report suggests that the condition may be appropriate. United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235, 1242 (9th…