USA V. DANIEL NICHERIE, No. 12-50533 (9th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 8 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-50533 D.C. No. 2:05-cr-01046-DSF v. MEMORANDUM* DANIEL EMMANUEL NICHERIE, a.k.a. Seal F, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 23, 2014** Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Daniel Emmanuel Nicherie appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the revocation of supervised release and the three-month custodial sentence and 33-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation. * 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). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Nicherie s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Nicherie has filed a pro se supplemental brief, the government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, and Nicherie has filed an opposition to the government s motion. 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. As to the arguments made in Nicherie s pro se supplemental brief, the government s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. Nicherie s arguments concerning a fee dispute with one of his former attorneys are not properly before the court. Counsel s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Nicherie s pro se motions for reappointment of his former counsel are DENIED. AFFIRMED. 1 2 12-50533

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.