Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul BLAZEVICH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-23
Citations: 463 F. App'x 700
Docket Number: No. 10-50214
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul BLAZEVICH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 700–700

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul BLAZEVICH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50214.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 23, 2011.
Matthew John Gardner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry Sies, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Paul Blazevich, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Paul Blazevich appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of audita querela, or in the alternative, his motion to terminate supervised release and reduce his fine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Blazevich'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. The appellant has filed a pro se supplemental brief, and no 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. The motion for return of property, not discussed in this nor in the district court's order, is not appropriately before us.
Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.