Basilio Rudas L. Lemus v. The Government of the Canal Zone

Fifth Circuit

Basilio Rudas L. Lemus v. The Government of the Canal Zone

443 F.2d 23, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10032

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 25, 1971

Docket71-1144

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 443 F.2d 23 (Basilio Rudas L. Lemus v. The Government of the Canal Zone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Basilio Rudas L. Lemus v. The Government of the Canal Zone, 443 F.2d 23, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10032 (5th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This case comes to us on an appeal from the conviction of defendant after a non-jury trial for the offense of selling cocaine in violation of Title 26, § 4705(a). We must also pass on the motion of defendant’s trial counsel, the public defender, to withdraw as counsel on appeal.

The public defender has performed his function as appeal counsel in *24 strict conformity with Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, but has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Defendant has filed his own brief in addition to the brief filed by the public defender.

We have carefully considered the cause in its entirety and find no arguable merit in the appeal. It is therefore ordered that the motion of the public defender to withdraw as appeal counsel is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This case comes to us on an appeal from the conviction of defendant after a non-jury trial for the offense of selling cocaine in violation of Title 26, § 4705(a). We must also pass on the motion of defendant’s trial counsel, the public defender, to withdraw as counsel on appeal.

The public defender has performed his function as appeal counsel in *24 strict conformity with Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, but has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Defendant has filed his own brief in addition to the brief filed by the public defender.

We have carefully considered the cause in its entirety and find no arguable merit in the appeal. It is therefore ordered that the motion of the public defender to withdraw as appeal counsel is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 F.2d 23, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basilio-rudas-l-lemus-v-the-government-of-the-canal-zone-ca5-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack