
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Royal Gene JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30173.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2014.
    Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Denver, CO, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Anthony R. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Royal Gene Jones appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his conditions of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jones argues that the district court erred by failing to consider the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) when it denied his motion seeking permission to reside in Wyoming while on supervised release, which the district court construed as a motion for transfer of jurisdiction over his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3605. This argument is unpersuasive. By its own terms, section 3624(c) applies to prere-lease custody, not supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1). Moreover, because the District of Wyoming did not accept jurisdiction over Jones, the district court properly concluded that he did not satisfy the statutory requirements of section 3605. See United States v. Ohler, 22 F.3d 857, 858-59 (9th Cir.1994).

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