Court Opinion

ID: 9392630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 18:00:52.227569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:47.406744
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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