Filed: Jul. 23, 2010
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Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-16143 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JULY 23, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 09-00030-CR-5-001-RS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DARIO ESPINOSA, a.k.a. D, a.k.a. Dario Espinosa-Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (July 23, 2010) Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and HILL, Ci
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-16143 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JULY 23, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 09-00030-CR-5-001-RS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DARIO ESPINOSA, a.k.a. D, a.k.a. Dario Espinosa-Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (July 23, 2010) Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and HILL, Cir..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-16143 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 23, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 09-00030-CR-5-001-RS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARIO ESPINOSA,
a.k.a. D,
a.k.a. Dario Espinosa-Alvarez,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(July 23, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Patterson, appointed counsel for Dario Espinosa in this direct
criminal appeal, 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 arguable issues of merit,
counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Espinosa’s convictions and
sentences are AFFIRMED.
2