
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joselito VILLAMIL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50300.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 11, 2010.
    Asha Muldro Olivas, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joselito Villamil appeals from specified conditions of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Villamil contends that one of his supervised release conditions must be vacated or modified to the extent that it delegates to the probation officer the ultimate decision of whether he must undergo inpatient mental health or sex offender treatment, and may require him to undergo penile plethysmographic (“PPG”) testing. This contention lacks merit because the condition does not contemplate either inpatient treatment or PPG testing. Therefore it is not ripe. Moreover, there is no authority requiring district courts to include language eliminating all potential forms of treatment not contemplated at the time of sentencing. Cf. United States v. Esparza, 552 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2009); United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 568-69 (9th Cir.2006).

Villamil also contends that supervised release conditions which define computer and computer-related devices to include PDAs, cellular telephones, and electronic games, are impermissibly overbroad. This contention lacks merit. See United States v. Goddard, 537 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir.2008).

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