Filed: Feb. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-13205 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-13205 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00167-MMH-MCR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PHILLIP LENARD NEAL, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (February 14, 2014) Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ronald W. Maxwell, appointed c
Summary: Case: 13-13205 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-13205 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00167-MMH-MCR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PHILLIP LENARD NEAL, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (February 14, 2014) Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ronald W. Maxwell, appointed co..
More
Case: 13-13205 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-13205
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00167-MMH-MCR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PHILLIP LENARD NEAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 14, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald W. Maxwell, appointed counsel for Phillip Lenard Neal in this
direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the
Case: 13-13205 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 2 of 2
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 Neal=s conviction and sentence
are AFFIRMED.
2