Filed: Dec. 04, 2009
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Dec. 04, 2009 No. 09-10397 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 08-00163-CR-T-24TGW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CURTIS NORRIS, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (December 4, 2009) Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Thomas
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS _ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Dec. 04, 2009 No. 09-10397 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 08-00163-CR-T-24TGW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CURTIS NORRIS, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (December 4, 2009) Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Thomas ..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Dec. 04, 2009
No. 09-10397 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-00163-CR-T-24TGW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CURTIS NORRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(December 4, 2009)
Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas H. Ostrander, appointed counsel for Curtis Norris, 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). Because
independent examination of the entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit,
counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Norris’s convictions and
sentences are AFFIRMED. Norris’s motion for an extension of time to file a pro
se response, and for an order directing counsel to forward the case file and records,
is DENIED AS MOOT.
2