United States v. Michael Van Niekerk
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Janis L. Sammartino (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
- Area
- criminal
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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50161 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cr-00879-JLS-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL JAMES VAN NIEKERK, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Michael James Van Niekerk appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 76-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Van Niekerk’s counsel has * 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). filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Van Niekerk the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
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.
We remand, however, solely for the district court to strike from the written judgment special condition 2, which was not orally pronounced. See United States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.
2 21-50161