Chong

MEMORANDUM **

Douglas Chong (“Chong”) appeals the sentence imposed for violating conditions of supervised release arising from his underlying conviction for bank fraud. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and VACATE and REMAND in part.

Chong was sentenced to 21 months incarceration, followed by 39 months on supervised release; the sentencing guidelines suggested a sentence of 5-11 months. The court imposed eleven special conditions, among them that Chong live on O’ahu “at the discretion and direction of the Probation Office” and that he not have “any physical contact” with his wife “without the prior approval of the Probation Office.” In imposing the sentence, the district court cited Chong’s violence, steroid use, and duplicity on the stand.

Because Chong failed to object to the conditions of his supervised release in district court, the conditions are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir.2003). The ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness. United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006) (citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in all but the majority’s determination with respect to the marital visitation special condition. Applying what appears to me the proper review standard, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (d); United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596, 600-01 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Within the[ ] bounds [of 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (d) ], we have recognized the flexibility and considerable discretion the district courts exercise to impose conditions of supervised release, up to and including limits upon the exercise of fundamental rights.”), and especially given Chong’s history of domestic abuse, I would defer to the more detailed familiarity of the district court in such matters and affirm across the board.