Filed: Jan. 23, 2007
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 January 23, 2007 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-40760 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER W. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-113-ALL Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender has moved for l
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 23, 2007 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-40760 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRISTOPHER W. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-113-ALL Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender has moved for le..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 23, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40760
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER W. JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CR-113-ALL
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the record
and counsel’s brief shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the motion
for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this
appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
DENIED.