Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-26
Citations: 363 F. App'x 504
Docket Number: No. 09-10085
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 504–504

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10085.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
John Robert Lopez, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Anders V. Rosenquist, Jr., Esquire, Ro-senquist & Associates, Phoenix, AZ, 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
Daniel Williams appeals from the district court's order revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Williams contends that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that he violated the conditions of his supervised release. The district court correctly concluded that Williams' supervised release violations were established by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); see also United States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003).
Williams also contends that the district court erred by denying his request to substitute counsel. The district court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the request. See United States v. Mendez-Sanehez, 563 F.3d 935, 942-43 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.