Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Davis, 02-30544 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 02-30544 Visitors: 30
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
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

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