Moore

MEMORANDUM ***

Moore claims that the imposition of the “no fishing” restriction was unlawful. The district court has wide discretion to impose conditions of supervised release. United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir.2003). Because there was no objection at the time of sentencing, this court reviews for plain error. United States v. Randall, 162 F.3d 557, 561 (9th Cir.1998). It was not plain error to include the “no fishing” provision, regardless of whether it would have been error had it been objected to and imposed over objection. With regard to all the challenges to the conditions, had they been made at the time of sentencing, the district judge might well have modified the conditions or explained why he would not do so.

Next, Moore claims that the conditions imposed are impermissibly vague or overbroad in violation of the First Amendment and his pursuit of happiness. Broad conditions on supervised releases, including restrictions of fundamental rights, are reasonable if they promote the rehabilitation and protection requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 . United States v. Bee, 162 F.3d 1232, 1235-6 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478, 480 (9th…