United States of America v. Joselito Villamil

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSELITO VILLAMIL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50300
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00797-RGK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Joselito Villamil appeals from specified conditions of supervised release
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Villamil contends that one of his supervised release conditions must be
vacated or modified to the extent that it delegates to the probation officer the
ultimate decision of whether he must undergo inpatient mental health or sex
offender treatment, and may require him to undergo penile plethysmographic
(“PPG”) testing. This contention lacks merit because the condition does not
contemplate either inpatient treatment or PPG testing. Therefore it is not ripe.
Moreover, there is no authority requiring district courts to include language
eliminating all potential forms of treatment not contemplated at the time of
sentencing. Cf. United States v. Esparza, 552 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 568-69 (9th Cir. 2006).
Villamil also contends that supervised release conditions which define
computer and computer-related devices to include PDAs, cellular telephones, and
electronic games, are impermissibly overbroad. This contention lacks merit. See
United States v. Goddard, 537 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --