United States of America v. WILLIAM MAC McCORCLE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM MAC McCORCLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10617
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00327-LRH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
William Mac McCorcle appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges conditions of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We dismiss.
FILED
MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

McCorcle contends that the district court erred in imposing special
conditions of supervised release requiring him to attend gambling addiction
treatment and prohibiting him from gambling or entering any gambling
establishment for one year. The government argues that this appeal should be
dismissed based on the appeal waiver contained in the parties’ plea agreement.
Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir.
2011), we dismiss. Contrary to McCorcle’s contentions, the challenged conditions
are constitutional because they are reasonably related to the goals of protecting the
public and rehabilitation, and involve no greater deprivation of liberty than
reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2); see also United States v.
Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 983 (9th Cir. 2009). Retaining the remainder of the
condition, we construe special condition of supervision number 3 as only barring
McCorcle from entering or frequenting establishments whose primary purpose is
providing legal or illegal gambling activities. See United States v. Gnirke, 775
F.3d 1155, 1166 (9th Cir. 2015) (adopting a limiting construction of a supervised
release condition that was consistent with the district court’s intent but avoided
unconstitutional overbreadth). So construed, McCorcle’s sentence is not illegal
and we dismiss pursuant to the valid appeal waiver. See Watson, 582 F.3d 988.
DISMISSED.
15-10617 2

-- 2 of 2 --