United States of America v. Stephan Duane Korol-Locke

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEPHAN DUANE KOROL-LOCKE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-30148
D.C. No.
4:17-cr-00062-BMM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 24, 2019**
Portland, Oregon
Before: FARRIS, BEA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Waiver must be knowing and voluntary. United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d
1149, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Joyce, 357 F.3d 921, 922
(9th Cir. 2004)). The record would support a finding that Korol-Locke’s waiver
FILED
NOV 01 2019
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 --

was both, but in spite of that, we review his argument that a probation condition
prevents privileged conversations with counsel. Even if Korol-Locke did not waive
the right to appeal the denial of his motion to modify or clarify his probation
condition, the ordered monitoring technique does not involve a greater deprivation
of liberty than was reasonably necessary for the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C §
3553(a)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b); see also United States v. Wong, 687
Fed.App’x 593, 596 (9th Cir. 2017); United States v. Cuneo, 472 Fed.App’x 648,
649 (9th Cir. 2012). Nothing in the ordered monitoring technique violates a
constitutional right or runs afoul of the Electronic Surveillance Act, 18 U.S.C. §§
2510 et seq.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --