Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel NICHERIE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-15
Citations: 278 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 07-50155
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel NICHERIE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 278
Pages: 757–757

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel NICHERIE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50155.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2008.
Filed May 15, 2008.
Steven J. Olson, Esq., Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Daniel Nicherie, San Pedro, CA, pro se.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The court severs the previously consolidated appeal Nos. 07-50136 and 07-50155.
A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The sole issue raised by appellant's opening brief, filed February 13, 2008, is whether the district court had jurisdiction to rule on appellant's request for return of attorney's fees and bond money which appellant believes to be excessive. On February 15, 2008, this court denied appellant's motion to amend his notice of appeal to include this issue as part of his appeal. Because this appeal presents no further questions which require further argument, we grant appellee's motion to summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
The court strikes that part of the previously filed opening brief that addressed the issue of attorney's fees and bond money in appeal No. 07-50155.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.