Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel NATER, aka Joel Paul Nater, aka Robert Berger, aka Michael Burke, aka Glen Howard Goodknight, aka Glen Howard Goodnight, aka Dennis Hodgson, aka Joel Nader, aka Joe Natorowitz, aka Joel Paul Natter, aka Joel Van Horn, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-09
Citations: 52 F. App'x 380
Docket Number: Nos. 01-50330, 01-50332; D.C. Nos. CR-98-01180-AHM, CR-99-01336-AHM
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel NATER, aka Joel Paul Nater, aka Robert Berger, aka Michael Burke, aka Glen Howard Goodknight, aka Glen Howard Goodnight, aka Dennis Hodgson, aka Joel Nader, aka Joe Natorowitz, aka Joel Paul Natter, aka Joel Van Horn, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 52
Pages: 380–380

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel NATER, aka Joel Paul Nater, aka Robert Berger, aka Michael Burke, aka Glen Howard Goodknight, aka Glen Howard Goodnight, aka Dennis Hodgson, aka Joel Nader, aka Joe Natorowitz, aka Joel Paul Natter, aka Joel Van Horn, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 01-50330, 01-50332.
D.C. Nos. CR-98-01180-AHM, CR-99-01336-AHM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.
Decided Dec. 9, 2002.
Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In these consolidated appeals, Joel Nater appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 72-month sentence for one count of false representation of a social security number, two counts of bankruptcy fraud, and one count of failure to appear, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B), 18 U.S.C. § 152(3), and 3146(a)(1), respectively. Nater's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Nater has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, and appellee did not file an answering brief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.
Our review of the Anders brief and our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), does not reveal any arguable issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel of record is GRANTED, and the district court's decision is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. The Clerk is directed to conform the docket to the caption as set forth above.