
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felix Oli TIGILAU, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10448.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 17, 2014.
    Cynthia W. Lie, Assistant U.S., USH-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Salina Kanai Althof, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Peter C. Wolff, Jr., Federal Public Defender, FPDHI-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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