United States of America v. David Simcho

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).
EF/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID SIMCHO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10131
D.C. No. 3:06-CR-00542-MHP
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
David Simcho appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and two concurrent
27-month sentences for aiding or assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, in
FILED
JAN 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EF/Research 09-10131 2
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), and tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Simcho’s counsel has filed
a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as
counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with 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, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. However, we REMAND sua sponte for the
limited purpose of considering whether the judgment is consistent with the district
court’s oral pronouncement regarding special condition of supervised release # 1.
See, e.g., United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir. 1993).

-- 2 of 2 --