United States v. Charles Roush

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 12, 2018
Docket17-10500
StatusUnpublished

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.

Bluebook
United States v. Charles Roush, (9th Cir. 2018).

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Watson
582 F.3d 974 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Charles Roush, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-roush-ca9-2018.