Filed: Feb. 04, 2011
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Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-11865 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar FEBRUARY 4, 2011 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00073-JRH-WLB-6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DERRICK D. KING, a.k.a. Dirty Red, a.k.a. Dirt, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _ (February 4, 2011) Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON,
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-11865 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar FEBRUARY 4, 2011 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00073-JRH-WLB-6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DERRICK D. KING, a.k.a. Dirty Red, a.k.a. Dirt, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _ (February 4, 2011) Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, ..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11865 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar FEBRUARY 4, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00073-JRH-WLB-6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DERRICK D. KING,
a.k.a. Dirty Red,
a.k.a. Dirt,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 4, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
J. Edward Enoch, Jr., appointed counsel for Derrick D. King 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 King’s conviction and sentence
are AFFIRMED.
2