Court Opinion

ID: 9396728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 17:00:49.362741+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.128422
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAY 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-10308

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:20-cr-08097-SMB-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WAYNE TAN,

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                             Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Wayne Tan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

121-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aggravated

sexual abuse of a child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 2241(c), and

2246(2)(B). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Tan’s counsel

      *
             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).
has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Tan the opportunity to file a pro

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

filed.

         Tan 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

supervised release special conditions 2, 5, and 9. Although the government elected

not to file an answering brief, it filed a letter stating that it would not “oppose

vacatur and remand of Special Conditions #2 and #5 . . . to permit the district court

to impose the District of Arizona’s post-Nishida conditions.” In view of this

position, we vacate special conditions 2 and 5 and remand for the district court to

modify these conditions in a manner consistent with United States v. Nishida, 53

F.4th 1144, 1151-55 (9th Cir. 2022). We also vacate and remand special condition

9 so the district court may reevaluate this condition in light of Nishida.

         Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

         DISMISSED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED with

instructions.

                                            2                                     22-10308