Filed: Aug. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-12442 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-12442 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cr-00050-ACC-PRL-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES ROBERT LESTER, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (August 29, 2016) Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-1244
Summary: Case: 14-12442 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-12442 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cr-00050-ACC-PRL-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES ROBERT LESTER, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (August 29, 2016) Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-12442..
More
Case: 14-12442 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12442
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cr-00050-ACC-PRL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES ROBERT LESTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(August 29, 2016)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-12442 Date Filed: 08/29/2016 Page: 2 of 2
Michael Nielsen, appointed counsel for Charles Lester 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). Our independent review of the entire record, including
Lester’s pro se brief, 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 Lester’s
conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. Additionally, Lester’s motions for
reconsideration of our earlier order denying his request to dismiss counsel, to
dismiss counsel, and to allow him to proceed pro se are DENIED AS MOOT.
2