United States v. Bailey

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Bailey. Read the opinion of the Court — 92 F. App'x 99
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 16, 2001·No. 00-40662·Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40662 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MITCHELL HAYWARD BAILEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-00-CR-24-1 -------------------- April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Mitchell Hayward Bailey

has filed a motion to withdraw from representation of Bailey and

a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Bailey has not responded to counsel’s brief. Our independent

review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous

issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED;

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

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

United States v. Bailey, (5th Cir. 2001).

United States v. Bailey (United States v. Bailey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)