Filed: Jun. 17, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41173 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANGELO JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:98-CR-16-2 - - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The federal public defender (FPD) appointed to represent Angelo Jackson has moved for
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41173 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ANGELO JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:98-CR-16-2 - - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The federal public defender (FPD) appointed to represent Angelo Jackson has moved for l..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41173
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANGELO JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:98-CR-16-2
- - - - - - - - - -
June 17, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The federal public defender (FPD) appointed to represent
Angelo Jackson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a
brief as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Jackson has responded arguing that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress and in sentencing him based on
crack cocaine. Our independent review of counsel’s brief,
Jackson’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous
issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-41173
-2-
counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.