USA v. Floyd Reed

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50062 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PEH , Judge: JES , Judge: CH. Mandate pull date is 10/28/2010 for Appellant Floyd David Reed; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Attorney Ms. Judy Fulmer Madewell for Appellant Mr. Floyd David Reed [6509909-2] [10-50062]

USA v. Floyd Reed

Doc. 0

Case: 10-50062

Document: 00511257206

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/07/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-50062 S u m m a r y Calendar October 7, 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. F L O Y D DAVID REED, 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 Western District of Texas U S D C No. 1:96-CR-19-1

B e fo r e HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* T h e Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Floyd David Reed has m o v e d for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. C a lifo r n ia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Reed has not filed a response. Our independent r e v iew of the record and counsel's brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. At his revocation hearing, Reed admitted the fact of his Texas conviction. This a d m is s io n was a sufficient basis for the district court to revoke his supervised r e le a s e . See, e.g., United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479, 480 (5th Cir. 2005)
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-50062

Document: 00511257206 Page: 2 No. 10-50062

Date Filed: 10/07/2010

(p e r curiam). The revocation proceedings also complied with the requirements o f due process. See generally United States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (5 t h Cir. 1988) (per curiam). And the district court's decision to impose the s t a t u t o r y maximum sentence on revocation was not plainly erroneous. See, e.g., U n ite d States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 265 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, c o u n s e l's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from fu r t h e r responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R . 42.2.

2