USA v. Moses Simmons

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Moses Simmons. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Amy Lee Copeland is GRANTED. [8078541-2]. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Download PDF
Case: 17-10262 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-10262 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-00221-WTM-GRS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MOSES SIMMONS, a.k.a. Fam, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ________________________ (September 1, 2017) Before HULL, WILSON and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Amy Lee Copeland, appointed counsel for Moses Simmons, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Case: 17-10262 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 2 of 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Simmons’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. 1 1 We acknowledge that Simmons expressed dissatisfaction with his prior counsel’s performance leading up to his sentencing and that he might wish to argue that counsel was ineffective in that respect. Such claims, however, generally “are not considered for the first time on direct appeal,” but rather are best reserved for postconviction proceedings. United States v. Tyndale, 209 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000); see Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 50405 (2003). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?