United States of America v. Daniel Williams

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).
AK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10085
D.C. No. 2:08-CR-50086-JAT
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Williams appeals from the district court’s order revoking his
supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
FILED
JAN 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AK/Research 09-10085 2
Williams contends that the district court abused its discretion when it
determined that he violated the conditions of his supervised release. The district
court correctly concluded that Williams’ supervised release violations were
established by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); see
also United States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003).
Williams also contends that the district court erred by denying his request to
substitute counsel. The district court properly exercised its discretion when it
denied the request. See United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935, 942-43
(9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --