Court Opinion

ID: 9396729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 17:00:49.662393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.455202
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-10252

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:13-cr-08075-DLR-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JASON CHRISTIAN BERGER,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Jason Christian Berger appeals from the district court’s order revoking

supervised release and imposing a 24-month sentence. Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Berger’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
record. Berger has filed a pro se supplemental brief. No answering brief has been

filed.

         Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. Berger’s

pro se arguments that his underlying conviction is invalid because he is innocent,

and that his former attorneys were ineffective, cannot be raised in these

proceedings. See United States v. Cate, 971 F.3d 1054, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2020)

(defendant cannot attack his underlying conviction in a supervised release

revocation proceeding); United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th

Cir. 2011) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims are generally not considered on

direct appeal). Moreover, the record shows that Berger’s supervised release was

not revoked for his alleged use of cocaine or for failing to attend drug treatment.

Rather, his supervised release was properly revoked upon his admission that he had

failed to appear for mandatory drug tests.

         Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Berger’s pro se requests for

relief are DENIED.

         AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    22-10252