Filed: Dec. 14, 2005
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 December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-41236 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TIMOTHY JEROME LUKE, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-357-ALL - Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Counsel appointed
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-41236 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TIMOTHY JEROME LUKE, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-357-ALL - Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Counsel appointed ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-41236
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY JEROME LUKE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:04-CR-357-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Counsel appointed to represent Timothy Jerome Luke has
requested leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a
brief as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Our independent review of the brief, Luke’s response, and the
record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s
motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from
further responsibilities, and the 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.