Frost
United States v. Frost
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Matt Frost appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for i*eceipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, and remand for clarification a condition of supervised release.
Frost contends that his 120-month sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider his social background, lack of criminal history, and motivation for treatment. The district court did not procedurally err and the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 990-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Frost also contends that his lifetime term of supervised release is unreasonable in light of his age, background, and lack of criminal history. We disagree. See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 922-24 (9th Cir.2008).
Finally, Frost contends that Special Condition No. 26 of his supervised release (which prohibits him from “possessing] or us[ing] any computer or other electronic device, which can provide access to the…