Filed: Jul. 25, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 13-10320 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-10320 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 8:89-cr-00004-EAK-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PRESTON LAMAR WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Cowboy, a.k.a. Preston Lee, a.k.a. Space Cowboy, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (July 25, 2013) Before HULL, JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Jud
Summary: Case: 13-10320 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-10320 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 8:89-cr-00004-EAK-4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PRESTON LAMAR WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Cowboy, a.k.a. Preston Lee, a.k.a. Space Cowboy, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (July 25, 2013) Before HULL, JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judg..
More
Case: 13-10320 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10320
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:89-cr-00004-EAK-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PRESTON LAMAR WILLIAMS,
a.k.a. Cowboy,
a.k.a. Preston Lee,
a.k.a. Space Cowboy,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 25, 2013)
Before HULL, JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Case: 13-10320 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Megan Saillant, appointed counsel for Preston Lamar Williams, has moved
to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct. 1396,
18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Our
independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the
relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the
entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion is GRANTED,
and denial of Williams’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion is AFFIRMED.
2