Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Mitchell STEWART, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-19
Citations: 671 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 15-30086
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Mitchell STEWART, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 614–614

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Mitchell STEWART, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30086
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 19, 2016
Danna Rae Jackson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE—Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana (Great Falls), Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.