Filed: Aug. 05, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 12-15685 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-15685 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00025-GKS-DAB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAYMOND ARCHIE BOYD, JR., Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (August 5, 2013) Case: 12-15685 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 2 of 2 Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and JORDAN, Ci
Summary: Case: 12-15685 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-15685 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00025-GKS-DAB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAYMOND ARCHIE BOYD, JR., Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (August 5, 2013) Case: 12-15685 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 2 of 2 Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and JORDAN, Cir..
More
Case: 12-15685 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15685
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00025-GKS-DAB-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAYMOND ARCHIE BOYD, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 5, 2013)
Case: 12-15685 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 2 of 2
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James W. Smith, III, appointed counsel for Raymond Boyd, Jr., in this direct
criminal appeal, 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 to withdraw is GRANTED, and Boyd’s conviction and sentence
are AFFIRMED. 1
1
We have conducted our review without applying the appeal waiver in the plea agreement
because the district court failed to sufficiently discuss the waiver with Boyd at the change of plea
hearing. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson,
541 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 2008).
2