USA v. Michael Corneliou
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-20020 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PEH, Judge: EHJ, Judge: JES. Mandate issue date is 12/01/2017 for Appellant Michael Cornelious; denying as unnecessary motion to substitute counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Michael Cornelious [8570260-2]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. David Adler [8515524-2] [17-20020]
Case: 17-20020
Document: 00514231196
Page: 1
Date Filed: 11/09/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-20020
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 9, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MICHAEL CORNELIOUS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-267-3
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Michael Cornelious 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).
Cornelious has filed a response, as well as a motion to substitute counsel. We
have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected
therein, as well as Cornelious’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-20020
Document: 00514231196
Page: 2
Date Filed: 11/09/2017
No. 17-20020
that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and Cornelious’s motion to
substitute is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. 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?