Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Louis Askew, 14-10613 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Number: 14-10613 Visitors: 149
Filed: Jan. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-10613 Date Filed: 01/26/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-10613 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:02-cr-20119-FAM-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LOUIS ASKEW, a.k.a. Dreads, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (January 26, 2015) Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case:
More
           Case: 14-10613    Date Filed: 01/26/2015   Page: 1 of 2


                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]


             IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                        ________________________

                              No. 14-10613
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                        ________________________

                   D.C. Docket No. 1:02-cr-20119-FAM-3



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                                Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                   versus

LOUIS ASKEW,
a.k.a. Dreads,

                                                          Defendant-Appellant.

                        ________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                       ________________________

                             (January 26, 2015)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
              Case: 14-10613     Date Filed: 01/26/2015   Page: 2 of 2


      Philip R. Horowitz, appointed counsel for Louis Askew in this direct

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). In a pro se response to counsel’s motion to

withdraw, Askew requests the appointment of substitute counsel. 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

Askew’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. Askew’s pro se motion for

substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Young, 
482 F.2d 993
, 995 (5th

Cir. 1973).




                                          2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer