UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHNNY LINCOLN MILLS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
JOHNNY LINCOLN MILLS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
446 F.2d 1397
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1971)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
The appellant was convicted by a jury of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. After sentencing, the appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a notice of appeal in his behalf, but now moves this Court to relieve him as appellate counsel on grounds that the appeal is frivolous. In compliance with Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, counsel has supplemented his motion with a brief. Therein he states that after a conscientious examination of the record, he can find no issue which might arguably support the appeal. The appellant himself has been advised of his right to respond to counsel’s motion by raising any points he claims are appealable. He has failed to submit any such reply.
We have carefully ■ reviewed the entire record in this case and find no arguable merit in the appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal under Local Rule 18, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See United States v. Minor, 5th Cir. 1971, 444 F. 2d 521; Lemus v. Government of Canal Zone, 5th Cir. 1971, 443 F. 2d 23.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Eads, 480 F.2d 131 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
United States v. King, 456 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
United States v. Rogers, 481 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1973)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Minor, 444 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Basilio Rudas L. Lemus v. The Gov't OF the Canal Zone, 443 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1971)