Filed: Jul. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-11453 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL JEROME HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas (4:00-CR-294-1) July 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The federal public defender appointed to represent Michael Jerome Henderson has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-11453 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL JEROME HENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas (4:00-CR-294-1) July 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The federal public defender appointed to represent Michael Jerome Henderson has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has f..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-11453
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL JEROME HENDERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(4:00-CR-294-1)
July 18, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The federal public defender appointed to represent Michael
Jerome Henderson has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has
filed a brief as required by Anders v. California.1 Henderson has
not filed a response to counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.2 Accordingly, the motion for
leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities in this case, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
2
Counsel’s brief does not discuss whether § 922(g)(1) is a
constitutional exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power.
Nonetheless, we have held that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional in
United States v. Kuban,
94 F.3d 971 (5th Cir. 1996), and United
States v. Rawls,
85 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 1996). It does not present
a nonfrivolous issue for appeal.