United States v. Jesse Harrison , 633 F. App'x 466 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10235
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00290-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JESSE QUINN HARRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jesse Quinn Harrison appeals the 15-month sentence imposed upon his third
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Harrison contends that the district court erred by relying on his repeated
*
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).
refusals to comply with a condition of supervised release requiring him to
participate in a mental health evaluation as a justification for the above-Guidelines
sentence. He argues that the imposition of the condition was an abuse of discretion
and violated his First Amendment rights. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the mental health condition because the record supports the
court’s conclusion that Harrison could benefit from mental health treatment. See
United States v. Lopez, 258 F.3d 1053, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2001). Moreover,
contrary to Harrison’s contention, his refusal to comply with the challenged
condition did not make it improper. See United States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d 1033,
1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A violation of the conditions of supervised release does not
obviate the need for further supervision, but rather confirms the judgment that
supervision was necessary.”). Finally, the challenged condition did not violate the
First Amendment because it was “primarily designed to affect the rehabilitation of
the probationer [and] insure the protection of the public.” United States v. Bee,
162 F.3d 1232, 1235 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly,
the district court did not err in relying on Harrison’s refusal to participate in the
mental health evaluation and its explanation for the above-Guidelines sentence was
sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-10235