United States of America v. Christopher Todd Smith

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).
JC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER TODD SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30304
D.C. No. 2:04-cr-06004-RHW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Todd Smith appeals from the ten-month sentence imposed
following the second revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
FILED
MAR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JC/Research 09-30304 2
First, Smith contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and provide an adequate
explanation for his sentence. The record belies this contention. See United States
v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Second, Smith contends the district court abused its discretion by imposing a
condition of supervised release that requires him to undergo a mental health
evaluation in the absence of evidence that he was mentally ill. The record supports
the district court’s conclusion that Smith may benefit from mental health
counseling. See United States v. Lopez, 258 F.3d 1053, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2001).
Finally, Smith contends that nonstandard Condition of Supervised Release
No. 14 should be stricken from the written judgment because it was not included in
the district court’s oral pronouncement. “In cases where there is a direct conflict
between an unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence and the written
judgment and commitment, this court has uniformly held that the oral
pronouncement, as correctly reported, must control.” United States v. Hicks,
997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we vacate this condition and
remand for the district court to make the written judgment consistent with the oral
pronouncement. See id.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --