United States v. Joseph Eugene Venable

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Joseph Eugene Venable

474 F.2d 1398, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10640

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 9, 1973·No. 72-3162·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Joseph E. Venable, appeals from his conviction for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle and for selling a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312, 2313, and 2.

The appellant’s trial counsel, having concluded that there is no meritorious basis for the appeal, has moved to withdraw as counsel on appeal and has supplemented his motion with a brief, in compliance with Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. The appellant has been advised by the Court of his right to respond to counsel’s motion by raising any points he contends are appealable. The appellant has failed to raise any such points.

Having carefully reviewed the entire record, which includes the full trial transcript, we find no arguable merit in the appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal under Local Rule 20. United States v. Mills, 5 Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 1397; United States v. Minor, 5 Cir. 1971, 444 F.2d 521; Lemus v. Government of the Canal Zone, 5 Cir. 1971, 443 F.2d 23.

Dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Joseph E. Venable, appeals from his conviction for interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle and for selling a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312, 2313, and 2.

The appellant’s trial counsel, having concluded that there is no meritorious basis for the appeal, has moved to withdraw as counsel on appeal and has supplemented his motion with a brief, in compliance with Anders v. California, 1967, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. The appellant has been advised by the Court of his right to respond to counsel’s motion by raising any points he contends are appealable. The appellant has failed to raise any such points.

Having carefully reviewed the entire record, which includes the full trial transcript, we find no arguable merit in the appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal under Local Rule 20. United States v. Mills, 5 Cir. 1971, 446 F.2d 1397; United States v. Minor, 5 Cir. 1971, 444 F.2d 521; Lemus v. Government of the Canal Zone, 5 Cir. 1971, 443 F.2d 23.

Dismissed.

United States v. Joseph Eugene Venable, 474 F.2d 1398, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10640 (5th Cir. 1973).

Pincite

474 F.2d 1398 (United States v. Joseph Eugene Venable) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related