Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Smith, 98-20781 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 98-20781 Visitors: 24
Filed: Sep. 21, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20781 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus REGINALD BERNARD SMITH, also known as Ronald Eric Smith, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-4-1 - September 17, 19991 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender, appointed to represent Reginald Bernard Smith, has moved for
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 98-20781
                         Summary Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

REGINALD BERNARD SMITH,
also known as Ronald Eric Smith,

                                          Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. H-98-CR-4-1
                      --------------------

                        September 17, 19991

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The Federal Public Defender, appointed to represent Reginald

Bernard Smith, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967).

Smith has filed a response to counsel’s motion to withdraw.      Our

independent review of counsel’s brief, Smith’s response, and the

record discloses no nonfrivolous issue.     Accordingly, the motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

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