United States v. Clark

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Clark. Read the opinion of the Court — 193 F.3d 845
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided August 13, 2001·No. 00-60588·Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60588 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRECE CLARK,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:99-CR-108-ALL -------------------- August 7, 2001

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Coghlan, appointed counsel for Trece Clark, has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent

review of the brief and the record and Clark's response discloses

no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. Clark's

motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Clark, (5th Cir. 2001).

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

Related

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