United States v. Rom Bennett ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-10179

Filed Date: 5/5/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/5/2023