Filed: Mar. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41481 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TONY LEWIS DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-30-ALL - March 5, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tony Lewis Davis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required b
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41481 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TONY LEWIS DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-30-ALL - March 5, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tony Lewis Davis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41481
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TONY LEWIS DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CR-30-ALL
--------------------
March 5, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tony
Lewis Davis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief
as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Davis
has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed
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 herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.