Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Shoemaker, 06-11070 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-11070 Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 16, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 16, 2008 No. 06-11070 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAMES ARTHUR SHOEMAKER Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:06-CR-04-ALL Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent James Arthur Shoe
More
           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                                                           April 16, 2008
                                     No. 06-11070
                                  Conference Calendar                 Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                              Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES ARTHUR SHOEMAKER

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:06-CR-04-ALL


Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent James Arthur Shoemaker has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967). Shoemaker has not filed a response. Our
independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous
issue for appeal.      Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer