USA v. Benjamin Matthew

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10722 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EGJ , Judge: ECP , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 03/14/2017 for Appellant Benjamin Grant Matthews; denying motion to proceed pro se filed by Appellant Mr. Benjamin Grant Matthews [8336922-2]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Jerry Van Beard, Esq. [8312274-2] [16-10722]

Download PDF
Case: 16-10722 Document: 00513882533 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10722 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 21, 2017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. BENJAMIN GRANT MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-41-1 Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Benjamin Grant Matthews 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). Matthews has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Matthews’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-10722 Document: 00513882533 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2017 No. 16-10722 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Matthews’s motion to proceed pro se is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 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?