Filed: Nov. 15, 2010
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Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-10826 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar NOVEMBER 15, 2010 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-00276-CB-C-5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HAYES JONES, JR., a.k.a. Pete, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama _ (November 15, 2010) Before HULL
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-10826 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar NOVEMBER 15, 2010 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-00276-CB-C-5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HAYES JONES, JR., a.k.a. Pete, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama _ (November 15, 2010) Before HULL,..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10826 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar NOVEMBER 15, 2010
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-00276-CB-C-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HAYES JONES, JR.,
a.k.a. Pete,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(November 15, 2010)
Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Elsie Mae Miller, appointed counsel for Hayes Jones, Jr., 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 arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED,
and Jones’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
2