NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ALEXANDER MONZONI,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 50329
D.C. No. 3:16

- cr - 02674

- LAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 1 7, 2018 **
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN , Circuit Judges. Alexander Monzoni appeals from the d istrict court’s judgment and challenges the five

- year term of supervised release and three conditions of supervised release imposed following his guilty

- plea convictions for importation of cocaine and methamphetamine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 9 60. We

* 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). 

# FILED

DEC 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 50329

have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm as to the supervised
release term but remand as to the challenged supervised release conditions.
Monzoni first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
calculate the Guidelines range for the supervised release term and by insufficiently explaining its decision to impose a five

- year term. We review for plain error, se e
United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and
conclude that there is none. Monzoni has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the district court expressly calculated the applicable Guidelines range. See United States v. Dallman , 533
F .3d 755, 762 ( 9th Cir. 2008). Moreover, t he district court ’s reason s for imposing
an above

- Guidelines term of supervised release are apparent from the record as a
whole , see U

nited States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984 , 992 (9th Cir. 20 08 ) (en banc) , and
the cour t did not rely on any proscribed factor in imposing the five

- year term

. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(c).
Monzoni also contends that the written judgment imposed three conditions of supervised release that conflict with the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. The government concedes, and we agree, that conditions seven and eight conflict with the oral pronouncement of sentence, which did not include these nonstandard
conditions

. See U

nited States v. Napier , 463 F.3d 1040, 1042

- 43 (9th Cir. 2006). By contrast, condition four’s mandate that Monzoni support his dependents merely3 17

- 50329

clarified the district court’s oral pronouncement that Monzoni was required to support his family, and it was adequately supported by the record. See U.S.S .G. § 5D1.3(d)(1)(A); Napier , 463 F.3d at 1043. Nonetheless, the phrase “ and meet other family responsibilities” in condition four is unconstitutionally vague. See
U nited States v. Evans , 883 F. 3d 1154, 1162

- 63 (9th Cir. 2018). We therefore
remand to th e district court with instructions to conform the judgment with the oral pronouncement of sentence by striking conditions seven and eight , and striking
from condition four the phrase “and meet other family responsibilities.” See
United States v. Hicks , 99 7 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED in part ; REMANDED in part with instructions
.