Filed: Dec. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-11795 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar DECEMBER 30, 2010 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00026-RH-WCS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VINCENT VIDAL MITCHELL, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (December 30, 2010) Before EDMON
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-11795 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar DECEMBER 30, 2010 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00026-RH-WCS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VINCENT VIDAL MITCHELL, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (December 30, 2010) Before EDMOND..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11795 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar DECEMBER 30, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 4:09-cr-00026-RH-WCS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VINCENT VIDAL MITCHELL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(December 30, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Chet Kaufman, the Federal Public Defender assigned to represent Vincent
Mitchell 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
Mitchell’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
2