Filed: Oct. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 12-10078 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-10078 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-20897-DMM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES JOVAN LADSON, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (October 2, 2012) Before WILSON, HILL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Richard Klugh, appointed counsel f
Summary: Case: 12-10078 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-10078 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-20897-DMM-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES JOVAN LADSON, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (October 2, 2012) Before WILSON, HILL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Richard Klugh, appointed counsel fo..
More
Case: 12-10078 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10078
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-20897-DMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES JOVAN LADSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 2, 2012)
Before WILSON, HILL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Klugh, appointed counsel for James Jovan Ladson, 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.
Case: 12-10078 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 2 of 2
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 Ladson’s sentences are
AFFIRMED.
2