United States of America v. Eduardo Vargas-Perez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDUARDO VARGAS-PEREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10550
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00760-PGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Vargas-Perez appeals from the district court’s order revoking
supervised release and challenges the imposition of two conditions of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vargas-Perez contends that the district court erred by imposing two standard
FILED
JUN 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

conditions of supervised release requiring that Vargas-Perez “not frequent places
where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered,”
and “not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity [or] with any
person convicted of a felony.” He argues that the conditions violate 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583 and due process because they lack an explicit mens rea requirement. We
review for plain error, see United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir.
2008), and find none. Vargas-Perez’s challenge fails because prohibited criminal
acts are presumed to require an element of mens rea. See id. at 750 (upholding a
nonassociation condition after construing it to require knowing association with the
prohibited group); see also United States v. Phillips, 704 F.3d 754, 768 (9th Cir.
2012) (supervised release condition restricting a defendant from frequenting places
where illegal drugs are used or sold does not violate due process because a
reasonable person would understand that the condition prohibits knowingly going
to a place where drugs are illegally used or sold).
AFFIRMED.
13-10550 2

-- 2 of 2 --