USA V. CHARLES ROUSH, No. 17-10500 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-10500 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.