United States v. Chung Yeung ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    DEC 20 2018
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 16-50314
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No.
    2:14-cr-00609-CAS-2
    v.
    CHUNG YU YEUNG, AKA Louis Yeung,                 MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted November 14, 2018
    Pasadena, California
    Before: PAEZ, PARKER,** and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    Defendant-Appellant Chung Yu Yeung appeals his sentence following his
    conviction of one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1349
     and 1344, and to four counts of aiding and abetting bank fraud in
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, United States Circuit Judge for
    the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1344
     and 42. He challenges the special conditions of
    supervised release imposed by the district court. We affirm.
    Yeung appeals three conditions of supervised release associated with
    computer usage, Conditions 8, 9, and 10. Yeung contends that these restrictions are
    not reasonable.
    We have held that conditions that ban internet or computer use outright or
    prohibit computer use without permission from a probation officer were too
    restrictive. See United States v. LaCoste, 
    821 F.3d 1187
    , 1190–92 (9th Cir. 2016);
    United States v. Barsumyan, 
    517 F.3d 1154
    , 1160–62 (9th Cir. 2008); United
    States v. Sales, 
    476 F.3d 732
    , 737 (9th Cir. 2007). The conditions here were not
    similarly overbroad, however. Yeung was not required to ask permission before
    accessing a computer or the internet, only to inform the probation officer which
    computers or computer-related devices he was accessing. Similarly, though in
    some cases this court has held restrictive conditions on computer use to be too
    tangential to the charged crime, see, e.g., Sales, 
    476 F.3d at 737
    , that is not the
    situation here. Yeung used computers and the internet extensively in furtherance of
    his crimes and hid the company’s computers and servers detailing the location of
    the company’s inventory once the fraud had been discovered.
    2
    Yeung also argued that Condition 10 of supervised release was overbroad
    since the condition did not clarify whether the computer monitoring program
    applied to internet use only or also to general computer use. We have already
    concluded that a similar condition applied only to internet usage. United States v.
    Quinzon, 
    643 F.3d 1266
    , 1272–73 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, the government concedes
    that Condition 10 only applies to internet usage.
    Consequently, we hold that the challenged conditions are consistent with the
    principles of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) of protecting the public from further harm and
    deterrence. See United States v. Wolf Child, 
    699 F.3d 1082
    , 1090 (9th Cir. 2012).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-50314

Filed Date: 12/20/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2018