Court Opinion

ID: 9926568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 00:00:45.2554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:25.821220
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JAN 24 2024
                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 23-643
                                                  D.C. No. 3:22-cr-02041-CAB-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                               MEMORANDUM*

PATRICIA GAUDRON,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of California
                  Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Patricia Gaudron appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

her jury-trial conviction, time-served sentence, and two-year term of supervised

release for transportation of certain aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

      *
             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).
Gaudron’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief,

along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Gaudron

the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

       Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal as to

Gaudron’s conviction, custodial sentence, term of supervised release, and special

conditions of supervision. However, the record reflects that the district court did

not orally pronounce or incorporate by reference the 13 standard supervised release

conditions included in the written judgment. In light of United States v. Montoya,

82 F.4th 640 (9th Cir. 2023) (en banc), which was decided after the district court

entered judgment in this case, we vacate those conditions and remand for the

limited purpose of permitting the district court to orally pronounce any standard

conditions it wishes to reimpose and to give Gaudron an opportunity to object. See

id. at 656.

       Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED without prejudice to renewal in

the district court.

       AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.

                                         2                                    23-643