MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Williams appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Williams contends that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that he violated the conditions of his supervised release. The district court correctly concluded that Williams’ supervised release violations were established by a preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); see also United States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003).

Williams also contends that the district court erred by denying his request to substitute counsel. The district court properly exercised its discretion when it denied the request. See United States v. Mendez-Sanehez, 563 F.3d 935, 942-43 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.