United States v. 2020-12-09 | 20-30097 | USA V. GEORGE VERKLER | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GEORGE VERKLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-30097

D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00041-JCC-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

George Verkler appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion
for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its broad discretion in concluding that early

*
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

DEC 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 20-30097
termination of supervised release was not in the interest of justice. See 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e)(1); United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014). The
record supports the district court’s conclusion that Verkler failed to accept
responsibility for his offense or make meaningful efforts towards restitution
payments and employment, and the court properly relied on these factors as
reasons to continue supervision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Further, the district
court did not err by failing to hold a hearing on the motion. Verkler did not request
a hearing in the district court and he has not identified on appeal any information
he would have provided at a hearing that he did not provide in his written
motion. See United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 559 n.9 (9th Cir. 2006) (it is
the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that early termination is justified).
The motion of appellant’s appointed counsel, Harry Williams IV, Esq., to be
relieved as counsel of record is granted.
Appellant’s pro se request for an effective attorney is treated as a motion for
appointment of substitute counsel. So treated, the motion is denied because
nothing in Verkler’s motion, or in the pro se briefs he provided this court, warrants
appointing counsel.
AFFIRMED.