United States of America v. Paul Blazevich

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
PAUL BLAZEVICH,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50214
D.C. No. 3:99-cr-00471-IEG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Paul Blazevich appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a
writ of audita querela, or in the alternative, his motion to terminate supervised
release and reduce his fine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
FILED
DEC 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50214 2
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Blazevich’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. The appellant has filed a pro se
supplemental brief, and no 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. The
motion for return of property, not discussed in this nor in the district court’s order,
is not appropriately before us.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --