Ronald Gottschalk V. , 682 F. App'x 601 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: RONALD GOTTSCHALK, No. 12-55304
______________________________
D.C. No. 2:11-mc-00284-ABC
RONALD GOTTSCHALK, attorney
disciplinary matter,
MEMORANDUM*
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Gottschalk, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s order
imposing reciprocal discipline on him after his disbarment from the California
State Bar. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
of discretion, In re Corrinet, 645 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing reciprocal
*
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).
discipline against Gottschalk because he failed to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that he was deprived of due process, that there was insufficient proof of
the misconduct that led to his disbarment, or that grave injustice would result from
the imposition of reciprocal discipline. See In re Kramer, 282 F.3d 721, 724-25
(9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the limited circumstances under which an attorney
subject to discipline by another court can avoid a federal court’s imposition of
reciprocal discipline, and setting forth attorney’s burden of proof).
We reject as unsupported by the record Gottschalk’s contention that the
district court improperly destroyed documents. Gottschalk’s request for counsel,
raised in his opening brief, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-55304