USA v. Douglas Brandon
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-10231 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: FPB , Judge: JLD , Judge: LHS. Mandate pull date is 11/14/2011 for Appellant Douglas Martin Brandon; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Jason Douglas Hawkins [6843300-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Douglas Martin Brandon [6854115-3] [11-10231]
Case: 11-10231
Document: 00511640204
Page: 1
Date Filed: 10/21/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 11-10231
Conference Calendar
October 21, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DOUGLAS MARTIN BRANDON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:09-CR-24-1
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Douglas Martin
Brandon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632
F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Brandon has filed a response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well
as Brandon’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-10231
Document: 00511640204
Page: 2
Date Filed: 10/21/2011
No. 11-10231
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.
Brandon’s request for appointment of new counsel on appeal is DENIED.
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?