United States v. Callahan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 16, 2001
• Docket: 00-30740
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 00-30740 Summary Calendar _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUSTIN E. CALLAHAN,

Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 99-CR-69-ALL-C _________________________________________________________________ April 13, 2001

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender has filed a motion to

withdraw from the representation of defendant Justin E. Callahan,

who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and

was sentenced to 180 months in prison. The Public Defender asserts

that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Callahan has

filed a response to this motion alleging that whether he was

properly sentenced as an armed career criminal presents a non-

frivolous issue.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), an appointed

attorney must follow established standards when seeking to withdraw

from a direct criminal appeal because the appeal lacks any arguable

issue. After a “conscientious examination” of the case, the

attorney must request permission to withdraw and must submit a

“brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably

support the appeal.” Id. at 744. The attorney must isolate

“possibly important issues” and must “furnish the court with

references to the record and legal authorities to aid it in its

appellate function.” United States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 1328, 1329

(5th Cir. 1976). After the defendant has had an opportunity to

raise any additional points, the court fully examines the record

and decides whether the case is frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at

744.

Our review of the record in this case reveals no non-frivolous

issues for appeal. Callahan’s indictment was sufficient; his

guilty plea was taken by the court under proper Rule 11 safeguards;

the court complied with Rule 32 by affording Callahan an

opportunity to address the court; and his sentence was properly

enhanced under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). The

motion to withdraw is therefore GRANTED and the conviction is

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R.42.2.