United States of America v. Charles Elmer Roush

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES ELMER ROUSH,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10500
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00236-LRH
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
JUL 12 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10500
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 of 2 --