United States v. Charles Roush
This text of United States v. Charles Roush (United States v. Charles Roush) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10500
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00236-LRH
v. MEMORANDUM* CHARLES ELMER ROUSH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Charles Elmer Roush appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for violation of the
Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Roush’s counsel has filed a brief
* 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). stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as
counsel of record. We have provided Roush the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
filed.
Roush waived his right to appeal his conviction and any aspect of his
sentence other than his above-Guidelines custodial sentence and supervised release
term. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the custodial sentence
or the term of supervision. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the
remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v.
Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 17-10500
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Charles Roush, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-roush-ca9-2018.