Case ID: f-appx_363/html/0504-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10085.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
    John Robert Lopez, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Anders V. Rosenquist, Jr., Esquire, Ro-senquist & Associates, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Williams appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Williams contends that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that he violated the conditions of his supervised release. The district court correctly concluded that Williams’ supervised release violations were established by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); see also United States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003).

Williams also contends that the district court erred by denying his request to substitute counsel. The district court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the request. See United States v. Mendez-Sanehez, 563 F.3d 935, 942-43 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.