Filed: Aug. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 13-10460 Date Filed: 08/29/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-10460 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cr-00100-GKS-TBS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODERICK MONROE, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (August 29, 2013) Before CARNES,
Summary: Case: 13-10460 Date Filed: 08/29/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-10460 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cr-00100-GKS-TBS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODERICK MONROE, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (August 29, 2013) Before CARNES, C..
More
Case: 13-10460 Date Filed: 08/29/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10460
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cr-00100-GKS-TBS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODERICK MONROE, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 29, 2013)
Before CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles E. Taylor, appointed counsel for Roderick Monroe in this direct
criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant
Case: 13-10460 Date Filed: 08/29/2013 Page: 2 of 2
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 Monroe’s convictions and
sentences are AFFIRMED.
2