United States v. Michael Van Niekerk

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 21, 2022
• Docket: 21-50161
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50161

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cr-00879-JLS-1

v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL JAMES VAN NIEKERK,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2022**

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Michael James Van Niekerk appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 76-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Van Niekerk’s counsel has

* 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). filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Van Niekerk the opportunity to

file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or 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.

We remand, however, solely for the district court to strike from the written

judgment special condition 2, which was not orally pronounced. See United States

v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

2 21-50161