United States v. Haley

601 F. App'x 912
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided April 22, 2015·No. No. 14-14076·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Matthew K. Hube, appointed counsel for Christopher L. Haley in this appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In a pro se response to counsel’s motion to withdraw, Haley requests the appointment of substitute counsel and a continuance. 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 arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, Haley’s pro se motion for appointment of substitute counsel and a continuance is DENIED, and the judgment revoking Haley’s supervised release and his resulting sentence are AFFIRMED.

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

United States v. Haley, 601 F. App'x 912 (11th Cir. 2015).

601 F. App'x 912 (United States v. Haley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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