Filed: Nov. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: Case: 12-11563 Date Filed: 11/05/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-11563 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 4:96-cr-00075-MP-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DEWAYNE DUGAN, a.k.a. Fat Dugan, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (November 5, 2012) Before HULL, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: Chet Kaufman, on behal
Summary: Case: 12-11563 Date Filed: 11/05/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-11563 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 4:96-cr-00075-MP-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DEWAYNE DUGAN, a.k.a. Fat Dugan, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (November 5, 2012) Before HULL, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: Chet Kaufman, on behalf..
More
Case: 12-11563 Date Filed: 11/05/2012 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11563
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:96-cr-00075-MP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEWAYNE DUGAN,
a.k.a. Fat Dugan,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 5, 2012)
Before HULL, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:
Chet Kaufman, on behalf of Randolph P. Murrel, Federal Public Defender
and appointed counsel for Dewayne Dugan in this appeal from the denial of an 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction motion, has moved to withdraw from
Case: 12-11563 Date Filed: 11/05/2012 Page: 2 of 2
further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (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 Dugan’s § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence is AFFIRMED.
2