United States v. Wpl, Juvenile , 635 F.3d 455 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                     FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 10-30202
    Plaintiff-Appellee,               D.C. No.
    v.                              6:03-cr-00022-
    CCL-1
    W.P.L., a juvenile,
    Defendant-Appellant.                ORDER
    AMENDING
    OPINION AND
    AMENDED
            OPINION
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Charles C. Lovell, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 7, 2011*
    Portland, Oregon
    Filed March 14, 2011
    Amended March 30, 2011
    Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Susan P. Graber, and
    Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam Opinion
    *The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    4201
    4202               UNITED STATES v. W.P.L.
    COUNSEL
    Michael Donahoe, Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena,
    Montana, for the defendant-appellant.
    Paulette L. Stewart, Assistant United States Attorney, Helena,
    Montana, for the plaintiff-appellee.
    ORDER
    The per curiam opinion filed March 14, 2011, is amended
    as follows:
    On slip opinion page 3545, lines 1-4, delete: “See United
    States v. T.K.N., 286 F. App’x 388, 389-90 (9th Cir. 2008)
    (unpublished) (rejecting a facial challenge to a nearly identi-
    cal condition of supervised release).” and replace with:
    See United States v. Talbert, 
    501 F.3d 449
    , 452 (5th
    Cir. 2007) (rejecting a challenge to a term of super-
    vised release that the defendant “ ‘register as a sex
    offender under state law if required to do so’ ”
    because “it is axiomatic that a district court can
    include as a condition that the defendant obey the
    law”).
    UNITED STATES v. W.P.L.                          4203
    On slip opinion page 3545, lines 11-14, delete: “See 
    id.
     at
    390 n.2 (holding that the defendant may bring an as-applied
    challenge to a nearly identical condition of supervised release
    only if the district court later revokes supervised release).”
    The original due date for filing petitions for rehearing and
    rehearing en banc shall remain in effect.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Defendant W.P.L., a juvenile, appeals the district court’s
    imposition of a condition of supervised release that he register
    as a sex offender “if required by law.” Reviewing for abuse
    of discretion, United States v. T.M., 
    330 F.3d 1235
    , 1240 n.2
    (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm.
    The district court did not make a legal determination that
    Defendant must register as a sex offender. Instead, it imposed
    the condition that he register only “if required by law.”1 It is
    within a district court’s discretion to impose a condition of
    supervised release that a defendant comply with mandatory
    legal duties. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). Indeed, district courts com-
    monly and properly impose a condition of supervised release
    that the defendant not violate federal, state, or local laws. We
    therefore reject Defendant’s facial challenge to the condition
    1
    Defendant expresses concern that the district court’s oral pronounce-
    ment at the sentencing hearing varies from its written pronouncement,
    quoted in text. Cf. United States v. Bergmann, 
    836 F.2d 1220
    , 1222 (9th
    Cir. 1988) (holding that, in cases of direct conflict between a court’s oral
    pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronounce-
    ment controls). We see no direct conflict. In context, it is apparent that the
    condition placed on Defendant’s supervised release was that he comply
    with federal and state sex-offender registration requirements. If those
    requirements do not apply to him, then compliance with the district court’s
    oral pronouncement requires nothing of him.
    4204               UNITED STATES v. W.P.L.
    of supervised release. See United States v. Talbert, 
    501 F.3d 449
    , 452 (5th Cir. 2007) (rejecting a challenge to a term of
    supervised release that the defendant “ ‘register as a sex
    offender under state law if required to do so’ ” because “it is
    axiomatic that a district court can include as a condition that
    the defendant obey the law”).
    Our decision does not foreclose an as-applied challenge in
    some later proceeding should the district court revoke Defen-
    dant’s release and should Defendant seek to challenge
    whether he was subject to the particular registration law at
    issue. In this appeal, though, the question whether Defendant
    must in fact register under federal or state law is not ripe for
    decision.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-30202

Citation Numbers: 635 F.3d 455

Judges: Thomas, Graber, Tallman

Filed Date: 3/30/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024