Opinion ID: 62137
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Order to Establish Child Support Accounts

Text: Torres also asserts that the district court plainly erred in ordering him to “establish an account in Arizona for the support of his/her minor child/children” as a condition of his supervised release. The sentencing guidelines provide that: [T]he defendant shall support the defendant’s dependents and meet other family responsibilities (including, but not limited to, complying with the terms of any court order or administrative process pursuant to the law of a state, the District of Columbia, or any other possession or territory of the United States requiring payments by the defendant for the support and maintenance of any child or of a child and the parent with whom the child is living). U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c)(4). Further, pursuant to statute, Congress has expressly authorized a district court to require a defendant, as a condition of supervised release, to “support his dependents and meet other family responsibilities.” 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(1). 14 No. 07-50286 Torres concedes that our review is for plain error. The government responds that § 5D1.3(c)(4) has been interpreted to mean that a district court can enforce a state court order for child support as a condition of supervised release. United States v. Lakatos, 241 F.3d 690, 693 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, however, there is no contention that there is an existing state court child support order. Nonetheless, the above-quoted guideline provides that the defendant’s obligation to support his dependents is “including, but not limited to, complying with the terms of any court order . . . .” § 5D1.3(c)(4) (emphasis added). This language indicates that a district court may impose conditions in addition to a state court child support order. In light of the statutory and sentencing guideline authorization to order a defendant to support his dependents, Torres has not carried his burden of showing plain error.