USA v. Coleman
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [08-41325 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: CDK , Judge: FPB , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 11/12/2010; denying motion to proceed pro se filed by Appellant Mr. Russell Kenton Coleman [6324146-2]; granting attorney motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Frank Warren Henderson, Esq. for Appellants Mr. Russell Kenton Coleman and Mr. Russell Kenton Coleman [6315599-2] [08-41325]
USA v. Coleman
Case: 08-41325 Document: 00511270077 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-41325 S u m m a r y Calendar October 21, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk
U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. R U S S E L L KENTON COLEMAN, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lla n t
A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Texas U S D C No. 1:94-CR-57-ALL
B e fo r e KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* T h e Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Russell Kenton C o le m a n has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance w it h Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Coleman has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and Coleman's response d is c lo s e s no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel's motion for le a v e to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 08-41325 Document: 00511270077 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2010 No. 08-41325 h e r e in , and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Coleman's m o t io n to proceed pro se on appeal is DENIED.
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?