Filed: Feb. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-30544 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONALD DAVIS, also known as Sweet Pea, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CR-70-4-T - - - - - - - - - - February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Ronald Davis has move
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-30544 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONALD DAVIS, also known as Sweet Pea, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CR-70-4-T - - - - - - - - - - February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Ronald Davis has moved..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30544
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD DAVIS, also known as Sweet Pea,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CR-70-4-T
- - - - - - - - - -
February 20, 2003
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Ronald Davis has moved
to withdraw as Davis’s counsel and has filed a brief as required
by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Davis has not
filed a response to the motion. Our independent review of the
brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
counsel is excused from further responsibilities, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.