Filed: Apr. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-13471 Date Filed: 04/09/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-13471 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00035-WS-N-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SHAWN EPHISIAN TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama _ (April 9, 2015) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Robert Ratliff, appoi
Summary: Case: 14-13471 Date Filed: 04/09/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-13471 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00035-WS-N-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SHAWN EPHISIAN TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama _ (April 9, 2015) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Robert Ratliff, appoin..
More
Case: 14-13471 Date Filed: 04/09/2015 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-13471
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00035-WS-N-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHAWN EPHISIAN TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(April 9, 2015)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Ratliff, appointed counsel for Shawn Taylor, in this direct criminal
appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and
Case: 14-13471 Date Filed: 04/09/2015 Page: 2 of 2
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 Taylor’s conviction and
sentence are AFFIRMED.
2