NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10175

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00084-LEK-2

v.

MEMORANDUM*

CHERIE ROER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Cherie Roer appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges two

conditions of supervised release imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for

drug offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for plain

error, see United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th Cir. 2012), and 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). affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Roer first challenges the special condition requiring her to participate in a

mental health assessment. Although Roer has made commendable rehabilitative

efforts, it is apparent that the district court adopted probation’s recommendation to

impose the challenged condition in light of Roer’s history of mental health issues.

See id. at 1090 (district court need not state its reasons for imposing a supervised

released condition when the reasoning is apparent from the record). Moreover, the

condition is proper because it is reasonably related to her rehabilitation and does

not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. See 18

U.S.C. § 3583(d); United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 618 (9th Cir. 2003).

Roer also challenges standard condition eight, which prohibits Roer from

interacting with known felons without prior approval, because it implicates her

right to associate with her husband. As the government concedes, the district court

plainly erred by failing to explain its reasons for imposing this condition. See Wolf

Child, 699 F.3d at 1090-92 (describing enhanced procedural requirements the court

must follow when imposing a condition that restricts a defendant’s particularly

significant liberty interest in familial association). Accordingly, we vacate the

condition and remand for the court to exempt Roer’s husband or make the requisite

findings as why it should apply to him. See id. at 1103.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.

2 22-10175