United States v. Johnson

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Johnson. Read the opinion of the Court — 990 F.3d 392
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided August 17, 2023·No. 22-30318·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-30318 Document: 00516862216 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 22-30318 FILED Summary Calendar August 17, 2023 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Arthur Johnson,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CR-109-1 ______________________________

Before King, Graves, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The attorney appointed to represent Arthur Johnson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed an original brief and a supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Johnson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-30318 Document: 00516862216 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2023

No. 22-30318

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

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

United States v. Johnson, (5th Cir. 2023).

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Flores
632 F.3d 229 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)