United States of America v. Michael David Henschel

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).
DAT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL DAVID HENSCHEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10162
D.C. No. 2:02-cr-01279-PGR
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Michael David Henschel appeals from the district court’s order revoking his
probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Henschel contends that a modified condition of probation prohibiting him
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DAT/Research 09-10162 2
from “conduct[ing] any business in the real estate arena” is overbroad. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in light of Henschel’s underlying conviction for
felony wire fraud arising from mortgage fraud. See United States v. Romero, 676
F.2d 406, 407 (9th Cir. 1982); see also United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872, 874-
75 (9th Cir. 2007).
Henschel also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the
district court’s determination that he had violated the condition. This contention is
belied by the record. See United States v. Tham, 884 F.2d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir.
1989).
In light of this disposition, we do not address the Government’s argument
that Henschel waived his challenge by consenting to the imposition of this
probation condition.
Henschel’s motion to waive oral argument is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --