*1 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 *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

[*] 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).