Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10641517
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Rivera
No. 10641517 · Decided July 25, 2025
No. 10641517·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 25, 2025
Citation
No. 10641517
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 25 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-7262
D.C. No.
Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:93-cr-00053-SPW-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DANIEL RIVERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2025**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking
supervised release and challenges two special conditions of supervised release
imposed as part of that judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
*
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).
Rivera argues that the district court erred in imposing special conditions 3
and 8 because it did not explain, nor does the record establish the need for, these
conditions. Because Rivera did not object to the conditions in the district court, we
review for plain error. See United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1118 (9th
Cir. 2010).
The district court did not plainly err because the reasons for the conditions
are apparent from the record. See id. at 1119 (“A district judge need not state at
sentencing the reasons for imposing each condition of supervised release, if it is
apparent from the record.”) (emphasis omitted). As the district court explained,
Rivera’s underlying conviction and repeated supervised release violations
involving sexual behavior, as well as his failure to complete sex offender
treatment, make him a risk to the community. It is evident from the record that the
court imposed the challenged conditions to lessen that risk. See United States v.
Gnirke, 775 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2015). Moreover, the conditions are
reasonably related to the goals of supervised release and involve no greater
deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d);
Gnirke, 775 F.3d at 1162-63.
AFFIRMED.
2 24-7262
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 25 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 25 2025 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No.
03Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
04Daniel Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and challenges two special conditions of supervised release imposed as part of that judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 25 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Rivera in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 25, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10641517 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.