USA V. OMAR TORRES, No. 19-30021 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JAN 23 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-30021 D.C. No. 18-17-SEH-01 v. MEMORANDUM* OMAR GALLARDO TORRES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 12, 2019 Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT,** District Judge. Defendant-Appellant Omar Gallardo Torres, a citizen of Mexico, appeals the district court’s imposition of a five-year term of supervised release that the court labeled “inactive” while Gallardo Torres is outside the United States under a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. lawful deportation order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873, 888 (9th Cir. 2012), and affirm. A term of supervised release cannot be tolled, stayed, or suspended while a person is outside the United States pursuant to a lawful deportation order.1 See United States v. Ignacio Juarez, 601 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); United States v. Murguia-Oliveros, 421 F.3d 951, 952, 954 (9th Cir. 2005). However, the district court here did not impose a tolled, stayed, or suspended term of supervision. Rather, the court acknowledged that while Gallardo Torres was not residing in the country, he could not be directly and actively supervised by the Probation Office and would therefore be under inactive supervision. If Gallardo Torres thereafter returned to the United States, he would then be subject to active supervision. AFFIRMED. 1 Gallardo Torres’s claim is ripe for review on direct appeal because his supervised release term forms “a part of the district court’s sentence, which is a final judgment subject to immediate appeal.” United States v. RodriguezRodriguez, 441 F.3d 767, 771–72 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)).
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.
