USA v. Michael Corneliou


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

Download PDF
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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?