Filed: Jun. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-10014 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN JAMES HINES, also known as Carl Anthony Jourdain, also known as Gregory Andrew Patton, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CR-25-1-C - Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO,
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-10014 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHN JAMES HINES, also known as Carl Anthony Jourdain, also known as Gregory Andrew Patton, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CR-25-1-C - Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, C..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 25, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10014
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN JAMES HINES, also known as
Carl Anthony Jourdain, also known
as Gregory Andrew Patton,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CR-25-1-C
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Counsel for John James Hines, the Federal Public Defender,
has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required
by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hines has filed
a response. Our independent review of the brief, the response,
and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct
appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,
and Hines’s 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.