Filed: Jun. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-14353 Date Filed: 06/03/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-14353 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00102-JRH-BKE-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus REGGIE LJUAN SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _ (June 3, 2015) Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Brendan N. Flem
Summary: Case: 14-14353 Date Filed: 06/03/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-14353 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00102-JRH-BKE-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus REGGIE LJUAN SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _ (June 3, 2015) Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Brendan N. Flemi..
More
Case: 14-14353 Date Filed: 06/03/2015 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14353
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00102-JRH-BKE-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REGGIE LJUAN SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 3, 2015)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Brendan N. Fleming, appointed counsel for Reggie Smith in this direct
criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Smith and
Case: 14-14353 Date Filed: 06/03/2015 Page: 2 of 2
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 Smith’s revocations of
supervised release and sentences are AFFIRMED.
2