Case Name: IN RE Jeffrey A. DICKERSON, Attorney at Law Nevada State Bar No. 2690, Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Petitioner-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-30
Citations: 677 F. App'x 310
Docket Number: No. 14-16554
Parties: IN RE Jeffrey A. DICKERSON, Attorney at Law Nevada State Bar No. 2690, Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Petitioner-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
IN RE Jeffrey A. DICKERSON, Attorney at Law Nevada State Bar No. 2690, Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Petitioner-Appellant.
No. 14-16554
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 30, 2017
Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Pro Se
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jeffrey A. Dickerson, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court's order imposing reciprocal discipline on him on the basis of his suspension from the Nevada State Bar. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing reciprocal discipline against Dickerson because he failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was deprived of due process, that there was insufficient proof of the misconduct that led to his suspension from the bar, or that grave injustice would result from the imposition of reciprocal discipline. See In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724-25 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the limited circumstances under which an attorney subject to discipline by .another court can avoid a federal court's imposition of recip rocal discipline, and setting forth attorney's burden of proof); see also D. Nev. L.R. IA ll-7(e)(3) (an attorney respondent "must set forth facts establishing one or more of the [elements precluding reciprocal discipline] by clear and convincing evidence" (alteration added)).
We reject as without merit Dickerson's contention that he district court violated his right to due process.
AFFIRMED.
⅛ disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.