Court Opinion

ID: 174897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-09-07 23:40:07+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:52.045648
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                SEP 07 2010

                                                                           MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 09-50312

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:05-cr-01046-DSF-5

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
DANIEL NICHERIE, AKA Seal F,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                     Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted August 30, 2010**
                               Pasadena, California

Before:        KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN and GOULD, Circuit
               Judges.

       Nicherie appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release.

Nicherie’s counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
                                                                                 page 2
grounds for relief and a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); United States v. Griffy, 895 F.2d 561, 562–63 (9th Cir.

1990). Nicherie alleges in a declaration supporting his motion for appointment of

new counsel that the district court committed various errors at his revocation

hearing.

      We have independently examined the record and found no non-frivolous

issues for appeal. United States v. Aguilar-Muniz, 156 F.3d 974, 978 (9th Cir.

1998); see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80–81 (1988). Counsel’s motion to

withdraw is granted. Nicherie’s motion for appointment of new counsel is denied.

      AFFIRMED.