Filed: Sep. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-16276 SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 99-00021-CR-ORL-22JGG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODERICK L. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (September 27, 2007) Before BIRCH, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-16276 SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 99-00021-CR-ORL-22JGG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODERICK L. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (September 27, 2007) Before BIRCH, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-16276 SEPTEMBER 27, 2007
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 99-00021-CR-ORL-22JGG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODERICK L. SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 27, 2007)
Before BIRCH, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Peter Warren Kenny, appointed counsel for Roderick L. Smith, has filed a
motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct. 1396,
18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Our independent
review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of
the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals
no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and
Smith’s revocation of supervised release and sentence are AFFIRMED.
The motion to appoint counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.
2