United States of America v. DANIEL NICHERIE, AKA Seal F

* 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL NICHERIE, AKA Seal F,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50312
D.C. No. 2:05-cr-01046-DSF-5
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 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.

-- 2 of 2 --