N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. B ETSY ELIZAB ETH DURANTYM OOR E, aka

Eliz a be th Sa ra h C o llins, a

ka B e t sy Duran ty , ak a

B e tsy Eliz a be th Duranty , aka

B e tsy M oore , aka

B e t sy Eliz a be th Proe bstle , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50070

D.C . No. 3:10-c r-00014-B EN-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding A rgue d a nd Subm i tte d Se pte m

be r 2, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER , R AW LINSON, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt B e tsy Eliz a b e th Dura nty -M o ore a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r
re voking he r supe rvise d re le a se and se nte nc ing he r to 12 m onths’ im p risonm e nt 

# FIL ED SEP 17 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.and 18 m onths’ supe rvise d re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291.

W e a ffirm

in pa rt a nd re m and for the lim ite d purpose s of striking the drug a nd
a lc ohol tre a tm e nt c o ndition from the judgm e nt a

nd of de signa

ting a nd e xpla ining
any oc c upationa l re stric tions im pose d. 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly e xe rc i se d its disc re tion to re voke De fe nda nt’ s supe rvise d re le a se . Se e Unite d State s v. Thum , 749 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th C ir. 2014) (re vie wing a distric t c ourt’ s re voc a tion of a te rm of supe rvise d re le a se for
a buse o f disc re tion). The gove rnm e nt e sta blishe d by

a pre ponde ra n c e of the
e vide nc e , se e 18 U.S.C . § 3583(e )(3); Johnson v. Unite d State s, 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000) (sta

ting tha t burde n of proof), tha

t De fe nda nt ha d viola

te d the c ondition
re quiring he r to subm it truthful a nd c om ple te m onthly

re ports to he r probation offic e r. It a lso e sta

blishe d tha

t De fe nda nt wa s on notic e of what she wa s re q uire d to subm it to sa

tisfy that c ondition. There wa s no due proc e s s viola tion. 2. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in im posing a c ondition re quiring
m e nta l he a l th tre a t

m e nt. De fe nda

nt did not obje c t to the c ondition when it wa s im pose d in 2011 pursua

n t to the probation offic e r’ s re c o m m e ndat ion. The
c ondition is c onte m

plate d by the se nte nc ing guide line s, Unite d State s v. Lope z , 258 F.3d 1053, 1055–56 (9th C ir. 2001) (c i ting U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(5)), a nd it is

2re a s ona

bly re late d to the se n t e nc ing goa ls of de te rre nc e and prote c tion of the public
. 1 3. W e la c k suffic i e nt inform a tion on this re c o rd to re solve De fe nda nt’ s obje c tion to the

im position of oc c upationa l re s tric tions. To im pose an
oc c upationa l re stric t i on, the distric t c ourt m ust ide n tify

De fe nda nt’ s oc c upation be fore he r c onvic tion a

nd m ust a rtic ulate a " re a sona b ly dire c t re l a tionship" be twe e n tha

t oc c upation " and the c onduc t re le va n t to the offe nse ," Unite d Sta te s v. Godda rd, 537 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5(a )(1)), whic h in this c a se wa s m a k ing a fa lse sta te m e n t (using a

fa lse ide ntity ) on a

n
a pplic a tion for a Unite d Sta te s pa ssport. The distric t c ourt ide ntifie d De fe nda nt’ s oc c upation a s " som e one who works for a l awy e r, c olle c ting fe e s a nd so on." B ut the c ourt did not spe c ify whic h
c onditions of supe

rvision (if a

n y ) it c onside re d oc c upationa l re stric t ions, nor did the c ourt a

rtic ulate how a

ny suc h oc c upationa l re stric tion(s) re late d to the offe nse

1 The distric t c ourt did not ma ke " on-the -re c ord, m e dic a lly -grounde d findings tha

t c ourt-orde re d

m e dic a tion [wa s] ne c e ssa ry to a c c om plish oneor m ore of the fa c tors liste d in [18 U.S.C .] § 3583(d)(1)." Unite d State s v. Da n ie ls, 541 F.3d 915, 926 (9th C ir. 2008) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). Ac c ordingly , the c ondition tha

t De fe nda nt ta ke " a ll m e dic a tions" pre sc ribe d to he r " m ust be unde rstood a s lim ite d to thosem e dic a tions tha t do not im

plic a te a pa rtic ula rly signific ant libe rty

inte re st of the de fe nda

nt." Id. (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). 3c onduc t. W e the re fore re m and to a llow the distric t c ourt to de signa t e any
oc c upationa l re stric t i ons im p ose d a s c onditions of supe rvision a nd to a rtic ulate the

" re a s ona bly dire c t re lationship" be twe e n De fe n da nt’ s oc c upation " a

nd the c onduc t
re le va nt to the offe n se ." Id. The gove rnm e n t c onc e de s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in im posing the
c ondition re quiring drug a nd a l c ohol a

buse tre a tm e n t. W e the re fore RE M AND for the l im ite d purpose s of striking tha t c ondition from the judgm e n t a nd of de signa ting a nd e xpla ining a

ny oc c upationa l re stric t ions im p ose d. The judgm e nt is othe rwise AFFIRM E D.

4