Filed: May 26, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 08-17234 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 26, 2009 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-00014-CR-4-RH-WCS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KENNETH DWAYNE HOUSTON, a.k.a. Boo-Boo, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (May 26, 2009) Before BIRCH, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 08-17234 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 26, 2009 Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-00014-CR-4-RH-WCS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KENNETH DWAYNE HOUSTON, a.k.a. Boo-Boo, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (May 26, 2009) Before BIRCH, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges...
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-17234 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 26, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00014-CR-4-RH-WCS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KENNETH DWAYNE HOUSTON,
a.k.a. Boo-Boo,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 26, 2009)
Before BIRCH, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Chet Kaufman, appointed counsel for Kenneth Dwayne Houston in this
appeal from the district court’s denial of Houston’s motion to reduce his sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), has moved to withdraw from further representation
of the appellant and filed a brief 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 the district court’s denial
of relief under § 3582(c)(2) is AFFIRMED.
2