evidence of, a defendant’s refusal to provide a handwriting exemplar if he was directed to do so, as involved here. Additionally, “[ejvidence that the defendant attempted to disguise his or her handwriting is also permissible, since otherwise the defendant could frustrate the government’s right to obtain a sample.” McDougal, 137 F.3d at 559 (citations omitted). In light of these settled principles, it is clear that the December 14, 2005 Order directing Lentz to provide handwriting exemplars to the government did not infringe his constitutional rights in any respect. And, it is equally clear that Lentz does not enjoy a constitutional right to refuse to comply with the December 14, 2005 Order, as he has chosen to do in this instance. See In re Braughton, 520 F.2d 765, 767 (9th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Blakney, 581 F.2d 1389, 1390
holding that there is no constitutional right to refuse chemical testing under the implied consent law holding that there is no general right to refuse to obey an order to make a handwriting exemplar which on it face contains no request for testimonial matter holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that it is well settled that there is no constitutional right to an appeal recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct