Filed: Feb. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: Case: 12-12320 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-12320 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20585-UU-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VINCENT ALLEN KNAPP, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (February 22, 2013) Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Thomas John Butler, appointed cou
Summary: Case: 12-12320 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-12320 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20585-UU-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VINCENT ALLEN KNAPP, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (February 22, 2013) Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Thomas John Butler, appointed coun..
More
Case: 12-12320 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12320
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20585-UU-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VINCENT ALLEN KNAPP,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 22, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas John Butler, appointed counsel for Vincent Knapp in this direct
criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief
Case: 12-12320 Date Filed: 02/22/2013 Page: 2 of 2
prepared pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct. 1396,
18 L. Ed. 2d
493 (1967). In response, Knapp has filed a motion to withdraw his appeal alleging
his counsel has not directly communicated with him about counsel’s motion to
withdraw.
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 on appeal as to
Knapp’s convictions and sentences, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED,
Knapp’s motion to withdraw his appeal is DENIED, and Knapp’s convictions and
sentences are AFFIRMED.
2