
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mikhail L. FELDMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50047.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2014.
    Alessandra Serano, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mikhail L. Feldman appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges a special condition of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Feldman contends that the district court erred by imposing a special condition of supervised release that requires him to submit to warrantless searches “without reasonable or probable cause.” Specifically, he argues that (1) the court improperly imposed the condition on the basis of a blanket policy rather than Feldman’s individual circumstances, (2) the court failed to respond to Feldman’s arguments against the condition, and (3) the record did not support the need for the condition. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir.2007), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Feldman’s arguments and adequately explained why the condition was necessary in this case. Moreover, in light of Feldman’s multiple violations of supervised release, the condition is reasonably supported by the need for deterrence and protection of the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Under these circumstances, the search condition cannot be said to be an abuse of discretion. See Betts, 511 F.3d at 876.

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