United States v. Daniel Nicherie

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 7, 2010
• Docket: 09-50312
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 07 2010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.