Filed: Sep. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-10941 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-10941 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cr-00565-RAL-EAJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAQUES D. RANDOLPH, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (September 16, 2014) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-10941 D
Summary: Case: 14-10941 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-10941 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cr-00565-RAL-EAJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAQUES D. RANDOLPH, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (September 16, 2014) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-10941 Da..
More
Case: 14-10941 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10941
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cr-00565-RAL-EAJ-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAQUES D. RANDOLPH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 16, 2014)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10941 Date Filed: 09/16/2014 Page: 2 of 2
Thomas A. Burns, appointed counsel for Jaques Randolph 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 Randolph’s conviction and
sentence are AFFIRMED.
2