Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy CEPERO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-11
Citations: 568 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 13-10124
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy CEPERO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 568
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy CEPERO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10124.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2014.
Decided April 11, 2014.
Michael Anthony Humphreys, Assistant U.S., Phillip Nelson Smith, Jr., Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Billy Cepero, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, 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
Billy Cepero appeals pro se from the district court's order denying as moot his motion to compel his former counsel to return his case file. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court denied Cepero's motion because it found that former counsel had already returned the entire case file to Cepero. We review this factual finding for clear error, see United States v. Yi 704 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir.2013), and the court's denial of Cepero's motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Anthony, 93 F.3d 614, 616 (9th Cir.1996). Because the record supports the district court's finding, it did not abuse its discretion in denying Cepero's motion.
To the extent Cepero challenges the district court's order denying his motion for appointment of appellate counsel and the underlying January 30, 2012, judgment, we decline to consider these arguments because they are outside the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.