Rubin

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Andrew Rubin appeals the three-year term of supervised release and four of the conditions of supervised release imposed as part of the sentence for his conviction by guilty plea to engaging in financial transactions in criminally derived funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 . First, Rubin argues that the threeyear term of supervised release is a greater *593 deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. Second, Rubin alleges that the four conditions of supervised release operate as improper occupational restrictions that are overbroad in relation to Rubin’s crime. We reject both contentions.

Rubin did not object to a claimed Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 11 violation or the conditions and length of supervised release in the district court. We therefore review those challenges for plain error. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 , 122 S.Ct. 1043 , 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002); United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994 , 996 n. 3 (9th Cir.2006). We review de novo whether Rubin has waived his right to appeal. See United States v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir.1991).

We cannot entertain Rubin’s challenge to standard condition 14,…