Filed: Jul. 25, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 12-14561 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-14561 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00463-EAK-TGW-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODNEY MALCOLM LARISCY, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (July 25, 2013) Before HULL, PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Craig L. Crawford, appointed coun
Summary: Case: 12-14561 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-14561 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00463-EAK-TGW-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODNEY MALCOLM LARISCY, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (July 25, 2013) Before HULL, PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Craig L. Crawford, appointed couns..
More
Case: 12-14561 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14561
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cr-00463-EAK-TGW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODNEY MALCOLM LARISCY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 25, 2013)
Before HULL, PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Craig L. Crawford, appointed counsel for Rodney Malcolm Lariscy in this
direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the
Case: 12-14561 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 2 of 2
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 Lariscy’s conviction and
sentence are AFFIRMED.
2