United States v. Paul Blazevich
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul BLAZEVICH, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Mary M. McKeown
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50214 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:99-cr-00471-IEG v. MEMORANDUM * PAUL BLAZEVICH, Defendant - Appellant.
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.
* 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), 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 10-50214