Filed: Mar. 20, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-15858 MAR 20, 2009 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 91-00051-CR-J-16-HTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHNNY LEE HANSLEY, a.k.a. Johnnie Lee Hansely, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (March 20, 2009) Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circ
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-15858 MAR 20, 2009 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 91-00051-CR-J-16-HTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHNNY LEE HANSLEY, a.k.a. Johnnie Lee Hansely, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (March 20, 2009) Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circu..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-15858 MAR 20, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 91-00051-CR-J-16-HTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHNNY LEE HANSLEY,
a.k.a. Johnnie Lee Hansely,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(March 20, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Truncale, appointed counsel for Johnny Lee Hansley in this appeal
from the district court’s denial of Hansley’s motion to reduce his sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), 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). Because independent examination of the entire
record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is
GRANTED, and the district court’s denial of relief under § 3582(c)(2) is
AFFIRMED.
2