United States of America v. Joseph Soo Han

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH SOO HAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10416
D.C. No.
2:07-cr-00205-KJD-RJJ-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE,*** District
Judge.
Joseph Han appeals the imposition of twenty-five additional months of
supervised release, two special conditions of his supervision, and one standard
* 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).
*** The Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 24 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
condition of his supervision.
In 2007, Han pled guilty to one count of bank robbery in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a). He was sentenced to a term of incarceration, supervised release,
restitution, and ordered to pay a special assessment. After completing his term of
incarceration, and as he neared the completion of his term of supervised release,
Han committed a series of violations of the terms of his supervision. The district
court revoked Han’s supervision and sentenced him to 11 months in prison and 25
months supervision. Han only challenges the length and conditions of his
supervision.
1. Han challenges the district court’s imposition of two special
conditions of supervised release requiring credit reporting and financial disclosure
to his probation officer. Because Han did not object in the district court, we review
the challenged supervised release conditions for plain error. United States v. Bell,
770 F.3d 1253, 1256 (9th Cir. 2014). Under these facts, assuming that the district
court erred in imposing the special conditions, we cannot say that the re-imposition
of the special conditions “seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1257 (quoting United States v. Castillo-
Marin, 684 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2012)). The district court therefore did not
plainly err in re-imposing the two special conditions.
2. Han challenges the imposition of a standard condition requiring him

-- 2 of 4 --

3
to answer truthfully questions asked by the probation officer. Han argues the
condition is impermissibly vague and overbroad. We review constitutional
challenges to conditions de novo. United States v. Aquino, 794 F.3d 1033, 1036
(9th Cir. 2015). The condition requires Han to tell the truth1 – an unambiguous
requirement. See United States v. Phillips, 704 F.3d 754, 768 (9th Cir. 2012). A
requirement to tell the truth does not, by extension, authorize probation officers to
ask questions wholly unrelated to the goals of supervised release. The term thus
does not forbid or require “the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application.” United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 866 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Therefore, the condition is not
unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
3. Han challenges the imposition of 25 additional months of supervision.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Reyes-Solosa, 761 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2014). The
sentence was within the Sentencing Guidelines’ range based on Han’s violations
and criminal history. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). Under the totality of the
circumstances present here, the district court did not abuse its discretion. Id.
1 The requirement to tell the truth does not preclude Han from asserting his Fifth
Amendment privilege if asked a question that would tend to incriminate him. See
United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 772-73 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --