USA V. WALTER STEWART, JR., No. 15-30086 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-30086 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
