Filed: Nov. 24, 2009
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Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Nov. 24, 2009 No. 09-12979 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 91-00300-CR-T-17-B UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RALPH E. BRAZEL, JR., Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (November 24, 2009) Before BARKETT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Leon
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Nov. 24, 2009 No. 09-12979 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 91-00300-CR-T-17-B UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RALPH E. BRAZEL, JR., Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (November 24, 2009) Before BARKETT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Leona..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Nov. 24, 2009
No. 09-12979 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 91-00300-CR-T-17-B
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RALPH E. BRAZEL, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(November 24, 2009)
Before BARKETT, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Leonard E. Clark, appointed counsel for Ralph Brazel, Jr., has filed a motion
to withdraw on appeal 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 the district
court’s denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief is AFFIRMED.
2