Filed: Dec. 12, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 12, 2007 No. 06-20943 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. CHARLES JARVIS FOSTER Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-359-3 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Charles Jarvi
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 12, 2007 No. 06-20943 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. CHARLES JARVIS FOSTER Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-359-3 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Charles Jarvis..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 12, 2007
No. 06-20943
Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CHARLES JARVIS FOSTER
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:05-CR-359-3
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Charles Jarvis Foster has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Foster has not filed a response. Our independent review
of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.