FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 03 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10479
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:13-cr-01036-SOM-1
v.
MALIA ARCIERO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2017**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and BEA, Circuit Judges.
1. A court may consider prejudice to the government when determining
whether to sever a joint trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a) (“If the joinder of . . .
defendants . . . appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may .
*
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).
page 2
. . sever the defendants’ trials . . . .”). The court did not abuse its discretion in
severing the trials so that defendants’ mutually inculpatory statements could be
admitted while avoiding a Confrontation Clause problem. See Bruton v. United
States, 391 U.S. 123, 126 (1968).
2. The special conditions of Arciero’s supervised release are not plainly
erroneous. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). When imposing the sentence, the court
properly considered Arciero’s mental health history and drug and alcohol abuse.
See United States v. Sales, 476 F.3d 732, 735–36 (9th Cir. 2007). Special
condition number 2 is mandatory; it delegates to the probation office’s discretion
only the details of mental health treatment. We have approved this practice. See
United States v. Stephens, 424 F.3d 876, 880–84 (9th Cir. 2005). Special
condition number 4 is neither vague nor overbroad, and it is reasonably related to
rehabilitative goals. See United States v. Goddard, 537 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir.
2008) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(d), 3553(a)).
AFFIRMED.