United States v. Christina Favela-Favela ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10217
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:18-cr-50160-SPL-1
v.
CHRISTINA FAVELA-FAVELA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 16, 2023
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: NGUYEN, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Christina Favela-Favela (“Favela”) appeals two of the supervised release
conditions imposed by the district court as unsupported by the record: (1) a
condition requiring her to abstain from possessing and using alcohol; and (2) a
condition requiring her to undergo a mental health assessment and to participate in
mental health treatment. Favela also contends that the mental health condition
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
improperly delegates the decision as to whether she must participate in treatment to
a medical or mental health professional. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the imposition of both conditions, but
remand for the district court to impose the District of Arizona’s new mental health
language.
1. Special Condition No. 4, prohibiting Favela from using or possessing
alcohol, does not lack reasonable support in the record. Favela’s past alcohol use
caused her to neglect her children and expose them to significant risks. While the
incident described in the record occurred many years ago, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing the no-alcohol condition given the serious nature
of the incident and the fact that Favela still had minor children at the time of
sentencing.1
2. Special Condition No. 5 states, in relevant part, that:
You must participate in a mental health assessment and participate in
mental health treatment as determined to be necessary by a medical or
mental health professional and follow any treatment directions by the
treatment provider.
Favela experienced previous mental health struggles, sought therapy in the past,
and was interested in pursuing therapy again. Thus, the record supports the district
1
Favela expressed concern that the condition barring possession of alcohol could
disqualify her from any job where she might handle alcohol. We interpret the
condition only to prohibit Favela from consuming alcohol or possessing alcohol for
personal use, not from serving alcohol as part of a job.
2
court’s conclusion that Favela would benefit from mental health treatment.
3. The district court did not improperly delegate the decision of whether
Favela must participate in mental health treatment to a non-judicial officer. As
long as a district court “answer[s] the question of whether [a defendant] would
undergo treatment,” there is no improper delegation of judicial power. United
States v. Stephens, 424 F.3d 876, 882 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, the district court used
mandatory language, requiring that Favela “must participate in a mental health
assessment and participate in mental health treatment.” We construe the clause
that follows, “as determined to be necessary by a medical or mental health
professional,” to refer to the determination of the appropriate type of treatment.
Because the district court mandated mental health treatment—leaving only “the
ministerial task[]” of choosing the appropriate method for compliance with the
court’s condition to a medical or mental health professional—it did not improperly
delegate its judicial authority. Id.Prior to oral argument, however, the government advised the court that the
District of Arizona recently modified the language used in its mental health
condition to account for United States v. Esparza, 552 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.
2009) (holding that the district court cannot delegate the decision of whether a
defendant receives inpatient versus outpatient treatment to a probation officer).
The government does not object to a limited remand to apply the new standard
3
language. Accordingly, we remand to the district court to impose the new
language.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
4