Filed: Aug. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: Case: 12-10977 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-10977 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:88-cr-00215-HWM-TEM-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BILLY JOE MCCLAIN, a.k.a. Billy, a.k.a. Bill, a.k.a. Bo, a.k.a. Billion Dollar Bill, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (August 27, 2012) Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDER
Summary: Case: 12-10977 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-10977 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:88-cr-00215-HWM-TEM-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BILLY JOE MCCLAIN, a.k.a. Billy, a.k.a. Bill, a.k.a. Bo, a.k.a. Billion Dollar Bill, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (August 27, 2012) Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERS..
More
Case: 12-10977 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10977
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:88-cr-00215-HWM-TEM-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BILLY JOE MCCLAIN,
a.k.a. Billy,
a.k.a. Bill,
a.k.a. Bo,
a.k.a. Billion Dollar Bill,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(August 27, 2012)
Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10977 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 2 of 2
Tracy N. DaCruz, appointed counsel for Billy Joe McClain in this 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 the district court’s denial of McClain’s § 3582(c)(2)
motion per Amendment 750 is AFFIRMED.
2