Filed: Jan. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-60106 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus IRBY LEWIS CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:00-CR-85-ALL-P - January 10, 2002 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Court-appointed counsel for Irby Lewis Chandler has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-60106 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus IRBY LEWIS CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:00-CR-85-ALL-P - January 10, 2002 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Court-appointed counsel for Irby Lewis Chandler has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60106
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
IRBY LEWIS CHANDLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:00-CR-85-ALL-P
--------------------
January 10, 2002
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Court-appointed counsel for Irby Lewis Chandler has
requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as
required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Chandler
has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief
and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue related to the
sufficiency of the evidence or sentencing. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
