UNITED STATES v. ROUSH (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Roush’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 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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (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.