Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SIMCHO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-25
Citations: 362 F. App'x 879
Docket Number: No. 09-10131
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SIMCHO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 879–880

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SIMCHO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10131.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 25, 2010.
Cynthia Lewis Stier, Esquire, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Shaftel, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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
David Simcho appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and two concurrent 27- month sentences for aiding or assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), and tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Simeho's counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. However, we REMAND sua sponte for the limited purpose of considering whether the judgment is consistent with the district court's oral pronouncement regarding special condition of supervised release # 1. See, e.g., United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir.1993).
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.