Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney JOSEPH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-26
Citations: 608 F. App'x 522
Docket Number: No. 14-10377
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney JOSEPH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 522–523

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney JOSEPH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10377.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 22, 2015.
Filed June 26, 2015.
Thomas J. Brady, Assistant U.S., Edric Ming-Kai Ching, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rodney Joseph, Jr., Atwater, CA, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Rodney Joseph, Jr., appeals pro se from the. district court's order denying his request to "not join" in his co-defendant's withdrawal of his motions for a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Joseph argues that the district court erred by treating his joinder in his co-defendant's motions for a new trial as withdrawn upon his co-defendant's withdrawal of the motions. The district court treated Joseph's joinder as withdrawn under District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.9, which states: "Unless otherwise ordered by the court, whenever an underlying' motion is withdrawn, any joinders are also treated as -withdrawn."' We review the district court's application of its local rules for abuse' of discretion. See United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir.2009). Contrary to Joseph's contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion by treating his joinder as withdrawn. See id. (only in rare cases will this court question the district court's exercise of discretion in applying local rules).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.