USA v. Eric Coline

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-20234 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EGJ, Judge: LHS, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 04/26/2017 for Appellant Eric Coline; denying motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. Eric Coline [8368043-2]; denying motion to place the record on appeal under seal filed by Appellant Mr. Eric Coline [8368043-3]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Eric Coline [8216840-3]; denying motion to proceed pro se filed by Appellant Mr. Eric Coline [8216840-4]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Brett Evan Ordiway, Esq. [8209002-2] [15-20234]

Case: 15-20234

Document: 00513940362

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/05/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-20234
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 5, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ERIC COLINE,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-406-2

Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Eric Coline has moved for leave to
withdraw on the ground that there is no nonfrivolous issue for appeal, in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s motion
satisfies the requirements for Anders briefs. See id.; United States v. Flores,
632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Coline has filed a response.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-20234

Document: 00513940362

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/05/2017

No. 15-20234
We have reviewed counsel’s motion and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein, as well as Coline’s response. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
However, contrary to counsel’s assertion, the judgment contains no clerical
error.

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. Coline’s motion for appointment of new
counsel or, alternatively, for leave to proceed pro se is DENIED. See United
States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902–03 (5th Cir. 1998). Coline’s motion to
supplement the record on appeal and to place the record on appeal under seal
is also DENIED.

2