Filed: Apr. 12, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40976 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN RANDAL EPPERSON, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-10-ALL - April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent John Randal Epperson (Epperson) has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40976 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN RANDAL EPPERSON, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-10-ALL - April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent John Randal Epperson (Epperson) has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40976
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN RANDAL EPPERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:01-CR-10-ALL
--------------------
April 11, 2002
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent John
Randal Epperson (Epperson) has moved to withdraw and has filed a
brief as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Epperson has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but
has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief
and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly,
counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Counsel is excused from
further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.