Filed: May 28, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 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Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 28, 2009 No. 08-16539 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 89-00004-CR-T-17-TGW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PRESTON LAMAR WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Cowboy, a.k.a. Preston Lee, a.k.a. Space Cowboy, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (May 28, 2009) Before BLAC
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 28, 2009 No. 08-16539 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 89-00004-CR-T-17-TGW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PRESTON LAMAR WILLIAMS, a.k.a. Cowboy, a.k.a. Preston Lee, a.k.a. Space Cowboy, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (May 28, 2009) Before BLACK..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 28, 2009
No. 08-16539 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 89-00004-CR-T-17-TGW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PRESTON LAMAR WILLIAMS,
a.k.a. Cowboy,
a.k.a. Preston Lee,
a.k.a. Space Cowboy,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(May 28, 2009)
Before BLACK, PRYOR and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Leonard E. Clark, appointed counsel for Preston Lamar Williams in this
appeal from the district court’s denial of Williams’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). 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 record reveals no arguable issues of merit,
counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s denial of
relief under § 3582(c)(2) is AFFIRMED.
2