United States v. Rom Bennett

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 5, 2023
• Docket: 22-10179
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 5 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10179

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cr-08109-SMB-1

v. MEMORANDUM* ROM LEE BENNETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Rom Lee Bennett appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence for sexual abuse of a minor, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2243(a), and 2246. Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Bennett’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

* 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). there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Bennett the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Bennett waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our

independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United

States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss

the appeal except as to Special Condition 15, which we vacate and remand. See

United States v. Nishida, 53 F.4th 1144, 1151-55 (9th Cir. 2022); see also Watson,

582 F.3d at 977 (an appeal waiver does not bar a constitutional challenge to a

supervised release condition). On remand, the district court must reevaluate

Special Condition 15 in light of Nishida and the post-Nishida changes made in the

District of Arizona to this special condition.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED with

instructions.

2 22-10179