Filed: Jul. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-14801 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-14801 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00012-MCR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD RAY HOLMES, Defendant-Appellant. _ No. 13-14802 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cr-00013-MCR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD RAY HOLMES, Defendant-Appellant. Case: 13-14801 Date Filed: 07/3
Summary: Case: 13-14801 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-14801 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00012-MCR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD RAY HOLMES, Defendant-Appellant. _ No. 13-14802 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cr-00013-MCR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DONALD RAY HOLMES, Defendant-Appellant. Case: 13-14801 Date Filed: 07/31..
More
Case: 13-14801 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14801
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cr-00012-MCR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONALD RAY HOLMES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 13-14802
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cr-00013-MCR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DONALD RAY HOLMES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Case: 13-14801 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 2 of 2
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(July 31, 2014)
Before PRYOR, MARTIN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Chet Kaufman, appointed counsel for Donald Holmes in these direct
criminal appeals, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Holmes
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 record reveals that
counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeals is correct. Because
independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,
counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Holmes’s conviction, revocation
of supervised release, and sentences are AFFIRMED.
2