Filed: Sep. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-10251 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-10251 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00104-SDM-TBM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS ALBERTO CAICEDO-RIVAS, a.k.a. Carlos Ramirez, a.k.a. Carlos Eduardo Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (September 18, 2014) Before MARTIN, HILL and FAY
Summary: Case: 14-10251 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-10251 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00104-SDM-TBM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS ALBERTO CAICEDO-RIVAS, a.k.a. Carlos Ramirez, a.k.a. Carlos Eduardo Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (September 18, 2014) Before MARTIN, HILL and FAY,..
More
Case: 14-10251 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10251
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00104-SDM-TBM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS ALBERTO CAICEDO-RIVAS,
a.k.a. Carlos Ramirez,
a.k.a. Carlos Eduardo Ramirez,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 18, 2014)
Before MARTIN, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10251 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 2 of 2
Joseph Torres, counsel for Carlos Alberto Caicedo-Rivas 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 Caicedo-Rivas’s convictions
and sentences are AFFIRMED.
2