
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Emmanuel NICHERIE, a.k.a. Seal F, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50533.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014
    
    Filed Oct. 8, 2014.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Kevin M. Lally, Esquire, Brent Whittlesey, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel Saunders, Partner, Bingham McCutchen, LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee. .
    Wayne Richard Young, Law Office of Wayne R. Young, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Daniel Emmanuel Nicherie, pro se.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     