Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Clark, 00-50974 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 00-50974 Visitors: 27
Filed: Aug. 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-50974 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CODY LEE CLARK, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CR-21-1 - August 14, 2001 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Court-appointed counsel for Cody Lee Clark has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as required by Ander
More
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                             No. 00-50974
                           Summary Calendar



                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                versus

                            CODY LEE CLARK,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant.

                         --------------------
            Appeal from the United States District Court
                  for the Western District of Texas
                        USDC No. A-00-CR-21-1
                         --------------------
                            August 14, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

            Court-appointed counsel for Cody Lee Clark has requested

leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967).     Clark did not file a

response.      Our independent review of the brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue.

            Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the

appeal is DISMISSED.



     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

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