United States of America v. Felix Oli Tigilau

13-10448Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit17 de mar. de 2014

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FELIX OLI TIGILAU,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10448
D.C. No. 1:12-cr-01251-LEK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Felix Oli Tigilau appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges a
condition of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; and impersonation of a federal
officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
MAR 17 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 --

§ 1291, and we affirm.
Tigilau contends that the district court erred by imposing Special Condition
of Supervision 1, which requires that he “participate in a mental health assessment
and any recommended treatment at the discretion and direction of the Probation
Office.” We review the district court’s imposition of conditions of supervised
release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th
Cir. 2008). Contrary to Tigilau’s contention, Special Condition of Supervision 1 is
supported by the record, which reflects that Tigilau himself stated that he had been
diagnosed with a mental disorder. See United States v. Lopez, 258 F.3d 1053, 1057
(9th Cir. 2001). Moreover, even if Tigilau is correct that the challenged condition
implicates a significant liberty interest and requires heightened findings, see
Stoterau, 524 F.3d at 1005-06, the district court stated its reasons for imposing the
condition here.
AFFIRMED.
13-10448 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.