USA V. CHABOT, No. 23-287 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 1 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-287 D.C. No. 9:22-cr-00018-DLC-1 MEMORANDUM* THERESA ANNE CHABOT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2024** Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Theresa Anne Chabot appeals the inclusion of the standard conditions of supervised release in the written judgment, which the court entered following her guilty-plea conviction for conducting an unlicensed money transmitting business, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * 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). We vacate the standard conditions and remand with instructions. Chabot contends that the district court erred under United States v. Montoya, 82 F.4th 640 (9th Cir. 2023) (en banc), because it did not orally impose, or provide her a list of, the standard conditions of supervised release prior to judgment. Although Chabot waived her right to appeal her sentence, the government does not seek to enforce the waiver. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (appeal waivers are non-jurisdictional and forfeitable). Instead, it concedes that the district court erred and concurs with Chabot that remand is appropriate. Accordingly, we vacate the standard supervised release conditions included in the written judgment and remand for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to orally pronounce any standard conditions it wishes to impose and after giving Chabot an opportunity to object. See Montoya, 82 F.4th at 656. VACATED IN PART and REMANDED. 2 23-287

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.