United States v. Earl

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Earl

307 F. App'x 381

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 2009

DocketNo. 07-10080

StatusPublished

This text of 307 F. App'x 381 (United States v. Earl) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Earl, 307 F. App'x 381 (11th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Barre C. Dumas, appointed counsel for Ervin Bernard Earl, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Earl’s convictions are AFFIRMED. We note, however, that the judgment and the order memorializing the jury’s verdict incorrectly substitute 18 U.S.C. § 1853 for 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Therefore, we VACATE and REMAND with instructions that the district court correct the judgment and the order memorializing the jury’s verdict by replacing 18 U.S.C. § 1853 with 18 U.S.C. § 1513.

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

PER CURIAM:

Barre C. Dumas, appointed counsel for Ervin Bernard Earl, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Earl’s convictions are AFFIRMED. We note, however, that the judgment and the order memorializing the jury’s verdict incorrectly substitute 18 U.S.C. § 1853 for 18 U.S.C. § 1513. Therefore, we VACATE and REMAND with instructions that the district court correct the judgment and the order memorializing the jury’s verdict by replacing 18 U.S.C. § 1853 with 18 U.S.C. § 1513.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 F. App'x 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-earl-ca11-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack