Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. George Washington Parker, Jr., 12-15762 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Number: 12-15762 Visitors: 25
Filed: May 30, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 12-15762 Date Filed: 05/30/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-15762 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:96-cr-00025-MP-GRJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GEORGE WASHINGTON PARKER, JR., Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (May 30, 2013) Before CARNES, BARKETT and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 12-15762 Date F
More
           Case: 12-15762   Date Filed: 05/30/2013   Page: 1 of 2


                                                        [DO NOT PUBLISH]



            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                      ________________________

                            No. 12-15762
                        Non-Argument Calendar
                      ________________________

                D.C. Docket No. 1:96-cr-00025-MP-GRJ-1



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                              Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                  versus

GEORGE WASHINGTON PARKER, JR.,

                                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                      ________________________

               Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Florida
                     ________________________

                            (May 30, 2013)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
              Case: 12-15762     Date Filed: 05/30/2013   Page: 2 of 2


      Gwendolyn Spivey, appointed counsel for George Washington Parker, Jr. in

this appeal of the district court’s denial of Parker’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion

for a sentence reduction, 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. Therefore,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the denial of Parker’s

§ 3582(c)(2) motion is AFFIRMED.




                                          2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer