Filed: Apr. 16, 2008
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 April 16, 2008 No. 06-11070 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAMES ARTHUR SHOEMAKER Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:06-CR-04-ALL Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent James Arthur Shoe
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 16, 2008 No. 06-11070 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAMES ARTHUR SHOEMAKER Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:06-CR-04-ALL Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent James Arthur Shoem..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 16, 2008
No. 06-11070
Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAMES ARTHUR SHOEMAKER
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:06-CR-04-ALL
Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent James Arthur Shoemaker has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Shoemaker 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.