Opinion
23-643
01-24-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PATRICIA GAUDRON, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of D.C. No. 3:22-cr-02041-CAB-1 California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
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), 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.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).