Filed: Feb. 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20668 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODNEY LEE PULLINS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-86-1 - February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender, appointed to represent Rodney Lee Pullins, has filed a motion to withdraw and a brie
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20668 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODNEY LEE PULLINS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-86-1 - February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender, appointed to represent Rodney Lee Pullins, has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20668
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODNEY LEE PULLINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CR-86-1
--------------------
February 16, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender, appointed to represent Rodney
Lee Pullins, has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief as
required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
Pullins has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has
not filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief
and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the
motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from
further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.