United States of America v. Mario Haro

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARIO HARO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50562
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00649-BTM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry T. Moskowitz, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Mario Haro appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
two-year term of supervised release and a special condition of supervised release
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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).
FILED
SEP 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-50562
Haro contends that the district court erred by imposing a term of supervised
release based on the allegedly erroneous determination that it would contribute to
his rehabilitation. In light of Haro’s history and circumstances, the district court
did not err in determining that supervised release was warranted. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(c); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 & cmt. n.3.
Haro next challenges the special condition of supervised release which
requires him to obtain prior approval from his probation officer for any residence
or change in residence. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United
States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2008). In light of Haro’s
circumstances and criminal history, the challenged condition is reasonably related
to deterrence and protection of the public, and it does not involve a greater
deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2);
Daniels, 541 F.3d at 924 (“[W]e give considerable deference to a district court's
determination of the appropriate supervised release conditions.” (internal
quotations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --