
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cory MISRAJE, a.k.a. Cory Spencer Misraje, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 14-50405, 15-50321.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 2, 2015.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Joey Lynn Blanch, Ami Sheth, Assistant U.S., Nancy Spiegel, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Elizabeth Richardson-Royer, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Cory Mis-raje appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the imposed GPS monitoring as a condition of supervised release. We have, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Misraje contends that the district court erred by modifying his conditions of supervised release to include GPS monitoring because it did not first hold an evidentiary hearing, and because the condition was not reasonably related to the goals of supervision and imposed a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. We review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 557 (9th Cir.2006). Contrary to Misraje’s contention, the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before modifying a supervised release condition. See United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2010). Moreover, in light of Mis-raje’s history and need to protect the public, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the GPS monitoring condition. See Weber, 451 F.3d at 557-58.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     