Case ID: f-appx_395/html/0336-01.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 NICHERIE, aka Seal F, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 09-50312.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 30, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 7, 2010.
    Kevin M. Lally, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Daniel Saunders, Assistant U.S., Brent Whittlesey, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kenneth M. Stern, Esquire, Kenneth M. Stern Law Offices, Woodland Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Daniel Nicherie, San Pedro, CA, pro se.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nicherie appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release. Nicherie’s counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for relief and a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); United States v. Griffy, 895 F.2d 561, 562-63 (9th Cir.1990). Nicherie alleges in a declaration supporting his motion for appointment of new counsel that the district court committed various errors at his revocation hearing.

We have independently examined the record and found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. United States v. Aguilar-Muniz, 156 F.3d 974, 978 (9th Cir.1998); see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Nicherie’s motion for appointment of new counsel is denied.

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