
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ismael TORRES-FIGUEROA, aka Ismael Torres Figuero, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-50453.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 11, 2012.
    
    Filed July 10, 2012.
    James Michael Left, Special Assistant U.S., Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Torres-Figueroa appeals the district court’s re-imposition of a residency restriction as a condition of his supervised release. The district court imposed the restriction after we previously vacated Torres-Figueroa’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Torres-Figueroa, 448 Fed.Appx. 729 (9th Cir. 2011). The restriction prohibits him from residing “within 200 yards of school yards, parks, public swimming pools, playgrounds, youth centers, video arcade facilities, or other places primarily used by persons under the age of 18.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we vacate the condition and remand to the district court to resentence Torres-Figueroa without a residency restriction.

The district court erred in imposing a residency restriction as a condition of Torres-Figueroa’s supervised release. Our prior ruling prohibited the imposition of a residency restriction on the basis of Torres-Figueroa’s 1994 conviction for aggravated sexual assault because that outdated conviction, without more, is insufficient to establish that the condition is reasonably related to the purposes of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). See United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir.2003). The district court’s imposition of a new residency restriction thus violates our mandate. United States v. Thrasher, 483 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir.2007).

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing without a residency restriction. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     