United States v. Charles Rouse

5 F.3d 543 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles ROUSE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-30379. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 11, 1993. * Decided Aug. 25, 1993. Before: PREGERSON, BRUNETTI, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Charles Rouse appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for use of the United States mail to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841 (a)(1), 843(b). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rouse's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record and submitted a brief which identifies two arguable issues for review: (1) whether the district court erred by denying Rouse's motion to suppress evidence seized from his person because law-enforcement officers lacked probable cause to arrest him; and (2) whether the district court erred by denying Rouse's motion for a new trial based upon a newspaper article…