Court Opinion

ID: 9410838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 19:00:54.532168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.613570
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-10231

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:22-cr-00016-HSG-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JAMES THEODORE HIGHHOUSE,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                 Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before:      SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      James Theodore Highhouse appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea convictions and aggregate 84-month sentence for two

counts of sexual abuse of a ward, two counts of abusive sexual contact, and one

count of making false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243(b), 2244(a)(4),

      *
             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).
and 1001, respectively. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

Highhouse’s counsel 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

Highhouse the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

      Highhouse 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 4 and 12, which we

vacate and remand for the district court to modify in a manner consistent with

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

      We also remand with instructions to correct the amended written judgment

to conform to the unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence by (1) suspending

the drug testing condition and (2) imposing a one-year term of supervised release

on Count 5. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015)

(unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence controls over inconsistent written

judgment). In addition, we remand to correct the statutory citation for Counts

Three and Four to 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(4).

                                          2                                    22-10231
      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

      DISMISSED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED with

instructions.

                                   3                          22-10231