MEMORANDUM **

Brian Gill appeals the district court’s order continuing the terms of his supervised release without modification. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Gill challenges a condition of his supervised release that requires him to abide by all rules and lifestyle restrictions imposed by his therapist as part of his sexual-deviancy treatment program. He argues, as he did below, that this condition imper-missibly delegates the district court’s judicial authority to Gill’s therapist.

Gill, however, raised this challenge for the first time in a memorandum asking the district court to modify the conditions of his supervised release. Congress has “limited the manner in which a defendant may challenge the legality of a supervised release condition to: (1) direct appeal, (2) § 2255 habeas corpus relief, and (3) ... [a] Rule 35(c) motion.” United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043, 1044 (9th Cir. 2002).

A district court may not modify the conditions of a defendant’s supervised release based on the defendant’s claim that a certain condition is illegal. Id. Accordingly, the district court did not err in ordering Gill’s supervised release to continue without modification.

AFFIRMED.