Filed: Sep. 26, 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 September 26, 2008 No. 08-30211 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. KENDRICK RILEY Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07-CR-252-1 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kendr
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 26, 2008 No. 08-30211 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. KENDRICK RILEY Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07-CR-252-1 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kendri..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 26, 2008
No. 08-30211
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
KENDRICK RILEY
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:07-CR-252-1
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kendrick Riley has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Riley 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.