N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In R e : DAVID ANTHONY HAR PER , Appe lla

nt. No. 12-56936 D.C . No. 2:12-m c -00002-AB C M EM O R ANDUM * Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Audre y B . C ollins, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. David Anthony

Ha rpe r a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r im posing re c iproc a l disc iplineon him on the ba s is of his suspen sion from the Florida State B ar by

the Florida

Supre m e C ourt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion, In reC orrine t , 645 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th C ir. 2011), a n d we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED DEC 4 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt a nd the re fore de nie s Ha

rpe r’ s re que st for ora l a

rgum e nt, se t forth in his opening brie f. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in im

posing re c i proc a l disc iplinea ga inst Ha

rpe r be c a use he fa ile d to e sta

blish by c le ar and c onvinc ing e vide nc e tha

t he wa s de prive d of due proc e ss, tha t the re wa s insuffic ie nt proof of the m isc onduc t tha

t le d to his suspe

n sion from

the ba r, or tha t gra v e injustic e would re sult from

the im position of re c iproc a l disc i pline . S e eIn reK rame r , 282 F.3d 721, 724-25 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth the lim i te d c irc um sta

n c e s unde r whic h a n attorne y subje c t to disc iplineby anothe r c ourt c an avoid a fe de ra l c ourt’ s im position of re c i proc a l disc ipline , a nd se tting forth a

ttorne y ’ s burde n

of proof); se e a lso In re

K rame r , 193 F.3d 1131, 1133 n.3 (9th C ir. 1999) (a lthough due proc e s s re quire s tha

t the distric t c ourt c onduc t a n inde pe nde nt re vie w of the sta te c ourt re c ord, “ t

he [distric t] c ourt m

ust a c c ord a

pre sum ption of c orre c t

ne ss to the sta te c o urt fa c tua l findings”(c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Ha rpe r’ s April 3, 2012 m otion for re c onside rat ion be c a use Ha rpe r fa ile d to e sta

blish a ba s is warran ting re c onside ration. Se eSc h. Dist. N o. 1J , Multnomah C

nty . , Or. v . AC a ndS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th C ir. 1993) (se tting forth the sta nda rd of re vie w a n d grounds for re c onside ration unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 59(e ) or 60(b)). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing Ha rpe r’ s Oc tobe r 5, 2012 m otion for re c onside ration be c a use Ha rpe r fa ile d

to file an 1 2 - 5 6 9 3 6 2am e nde d or se pa rate notic e of a

ppe a l. Se e W

h itak e r v . Garc e t ti , 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th C ir. 2007); se e also Fe d. R . App. P. 4(a )(4)(B )(ii). W e re je c t Ha rpe r’ s c o nte ntion tha

t the distric t c ourt viola

te d his dueproc e ss rights whe n im

posing re c iproc a l disc iplinebe c a use the distric t c ourt proc e e dings m e t due proc e ss re quire m e nts. Se e In reK rame r , 193 F.3d a

t 1133 (due proc e ss provide d whe n distric t c ourt issue s a n orde r to show c a

use to the re sponde nt attorne y and re vie ws the sta

t e re c o rd). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 5 6 9 3 6 3