United States v. Arenas-Herrera

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-3323 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:22-cr-00813-DLR-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JOSELIN NORMA ARENAS-HERRERA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 22, 2026** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Joselin Norma Arenas-Herrera appeals from the district court’s order revoking supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. At the revocation hearing, the district court imposed a new supervised * 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). release term and ordered Arenas-Herrera to comply with the standard conditions of supervised release, as well as one special condition prohibiting her return to the United States without legal authorization. Arenas-Herrera contends that the court erred by failing to specify how the standard conditions would apply following her deportation, asserting that the conditions are “vague and inscrutable” as applied to a deported supervisee. We review this claim for plain error. See United States v. Vinge, 85 F.4th 1285, 1288 (9th Cir. 2023). The district court did not plainly err. Any error is not plain because Arenas- Herrera cites no controlling authority requiring a court to explain how supervised release conditions will apply to a defendant who is deported. See United States v. Wijegoonaratna, 922 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir. 2019). Furthermore, Arenas-Herrera has not shown that any error affected her substantial rights because the record reflects that the court and the parties were aware of the high likelihood that Arenas-Herrera would be deported and understood that the conditions would apply only in the event she were not. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993) (an error does not affect substantial rights if it is not prejudicial). AFFIRMED. 2 25-3323