Opinion ID: 3011785
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Judicial Efficiency

Text: Our position also promotes judicial efficiency. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wayne County, 760 F .2d 689, 696 (6th Cir. 1985) (holding that the ripeness inquiry includes considerations of judicial economy); Independent Bankers Ass'n of Am. v. Smith, 534 F.2d 921, 928 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (same). Loy is pursuing, as a routine matter , his appellate right to challenge a final order of the District Court. We review these conditions all the time, and, as a prudential 15 matter, it makes sense to review them at this stage. Just last year, we reviewed the conditions of a supervised release in United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122, 128 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 138 (1999), and upheld a condition prohibiting the defendant access to the inter net after he was convicted of receiving child pornography. The government's approach merely ensur es multiple adjudications as defendants appeal parts of their sentences immediately--as, indeed, they must do under United States v. Stine, 646 F.2d 839 (3d Cir. 1981)--and parts of them later on. Cf. FTC v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U.S. 232, 242 (1980) (ripeness doctrine is intended to prevent piecemeal review and to ensure judicial efficiency).