Filed: May 02, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT May 2, 2006 No. 05-15950 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 05-00085-CR-ORL-22DAB UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GERMAN MUNOZ CANOLA, a.k.a. German Munoz, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (May 2, 2006) Before MARCUS, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges PER
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT May 2, 2006 No. 05-15950 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 05-00085-CR-ORL-22DAB UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GERMAN MUNOZ CANOLA, a.k.a. German Munoz, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (May 2, 2006) Before MARCUS, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges PER C..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
May 2, 2006
No. 05-15950 THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 05-00085-CR-ORL-22DAB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GERMAN MUNOZ CANOLA,
a.k.a. German Munoz,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(May 2, 2006)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:
H. Kyle Fletcher, appointed counsel for German Munoz Canola 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 Canola’s conviction and
sentence are AFFIRMED.
2