United States of America v. Mark Bender

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARK BENDER,
Defendant-Appellant,
No. 16-50021
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01273-SJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Mark Bender appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges a
special condition of supervised release imposed upon revocation of his supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of
FILED
DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

discretion, United States v. Rudd, 662 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2011), and we
vacate and remand for resentencing.
Bender challenges the special condition of supervised release that prohibits
him from having any contact with minors other than family members, with the
exception of frequenting locations, such as restaurants, that may employ minors.
The district court did not explain its reasons for imposing this condition, nor are its
reasons apparent from the record. See United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873, 890
(9th Cir. 2012). The only allegations in the record that referenced a minor were
contained in a dismissed charge that Bender specifically disputed and that the
district court expressly declined to consider. Accordingly, we remand to the
district court to either vacate the condition or provide sufficient justification for it.
See id. at 892.
VACATED and REMANDED.
16-50021 2

-- 2 of 2 --