Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan David TIKAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-29
Citations: 637 F. App'x 426
Docket Number: No. 15-10118
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan David TIKAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 426–427

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan David TIKAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10118.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
Philip A. Ferrari, Assistant U.S., Kevin Christopher Khasigian, Assistant U.S., USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Maggy Krell, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Barry L. Morris, Barry L. Morris, Attorney at Law, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, 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
Alan David Tikal appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges his bench-trial conviction and 288-month sentence for 11 counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and one count of engaging in monetary transactions in criminally derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Tikal's counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Tikal has filed a pro se supplemental opening brief. The government has not filed an answering brief.
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Tikal's pending pro se motions are DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.