Filed: Apr. 15, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-40575 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD I. JAMES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-96-CR-349-1 - - - - - - - - - - April 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Donald I. James has appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute an
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-40575 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD I. JAMES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-96-CR-349-1 - - - - - - - - - - April 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Donald I. James has appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-40575
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONALD I. JAMES,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-96-CR-349-1
- - - - - - - - - -
April 8, 1998
Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Donald I. James has appealed his convictions for possession
of cocaine with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting.
James contends that the district court failed to comply with the
requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) & (c)(3) in accepting
James’s guilty plea. The record does not show that any such
noncompliance affected James’s substantial rights. See United
States v. Johnson,
1 F.3d 296, 298, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en
banc). The appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Counsel are
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-40575
-2-
instructed to review their duties under Anders v. California,
386
U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
APPEAL DISMISSED.