United States v. Walter Stewart, Jr. , 671 F. App'x 614 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              DEC 19 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   15-30086
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00086-DWM
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WALTER MITCHELL STEWART, Jr.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2016**
    Before:      WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Walter Mitchell Stewart, Jr., appeals from the district court’s amended
    judgment reimposing on remand a special condition of supervised release that
    prohibits him from residing in the home or being in the company of any child
    under the age of 18, with the exception of his own children, without the prior
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    written approval of the United States Probation Office. Stewart contends that the
    condition is unreasonable because it unnecessarily interferes with his right to
    associate with his children and grandchildren and delegates too much authority to
    the probation officer.
    We review the district court’s imposition of a condition of supervised release
    for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Wolf Child, 
    699 F.3d 1082
    , 1089 (9th
    Cir. 2012). In light of Stewart’s history of sexual misconduct with underage
    family members, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the
    condition to deter future misconduct and to protect the community, including
    Stewart’s grandchildren. See 
    id. at 1090.
    Further, under the circumstances of this
    case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by delegating to the probation
    office the implementation of this condition. See United States v. Blinkinsop, 
    606 F.3d 1110
    , 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2010).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      15-30086
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-30086

Citation Numbers: 671 F. App'x 614

Filed Date: 12/19/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023