USA V. GEORGE VERKLER, No. 15-30244 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED DEC 19 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-30244 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00041-JCC v. MEMORANDUM* GEORGE VERKLER, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. George Verkler appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 24-month concurrent sentences for theft of government funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, consecutive to 24-month concurrent sentences for aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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), Verkler’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Verkler has filed pro se supplemental opening and reply briefs. No answering brief has been filed. Verkler waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver, including the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988. To the extent that Verkler seeks to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to address these issues on direct appeal. See United States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED; Verkler’s pro se motion to dismiss counsel and to appoint substitute counsel is DENIED. DISMISSED. 2 15-30244

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.