Filed: Sep. 15, 2009
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 15, 2009 No. 09-30051 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DANIELLE BERNARD METZ, also known as Boo, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for Eastern the District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:92-CR-469-3 Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to repre
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 15, 2009 No. 09-30051 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DANIELLE BERNARD METZ, also known as Boo, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for Eastern the District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:92-CR-469-3 Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to repres..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 15, 2009
No. 09-30051
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DANIELLE BERNARD METZ, also known as Boo,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for Eastern the District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:92-CR-469-3
Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Danielle Bernard Metz in an appeal
from the denial of her motion to reduce her sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Metz 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
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
No. 09-30051
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.
2