United States v. Eduardo Vargas-Perez , 581 F. App'x 621 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 27 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10550
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00760-PGR
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    EDUARDO VARGAS-PEREZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 25, 2014**
    Before:        HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    Eduardo Vargas-Perez appeals from the district court’s order revoking
    supervised release and challenges the imposition of two conditions of supervised
    release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
    Vargas-Perez contends that the district court erred by imposing two standard
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    conditions of supervised release requiring that Vargas-Perez “not frequent places
    where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered,”
    and “not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity [or] with any
    person convicted of a felony.” He argues that the conditions violate 18 U.S.C.
    § 3583 and due process because they lack an explicit mens rea requirement. We
    review for plain error, see United States v. Vega, 
    545 F.3d 743
    , 747 (9th Cir.
    2008), and find none. Vargas-Perez’s challenge fails because prohibited criminal
    acts are presumed to require an element of mens rea. See 
    id. at 750
    (upholding a
    nonassociation condition after construing it to require knowing association with the
    prohibited group); see also United States v. Phillips, 
    704 F.3d 754
    , 768 (9th Cir.
    2012) (supervised release condition restricting a defendant from frequenting places
    where illegal drugs are used or sold does not violate due process because a
    reasonable person would understand that the condition prohibits knowingly going
    to a place where drugs are illegally used or sold).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     13-10550
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-10550

Citation Numbers: 581 F. App'x 621

Judges: Hawkins, Nguyen, Tallman

Filed Date: 6/27/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023