United States v. Malone

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Malone

353 F. App'x 400

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided November 25, 2009·No. No. 08-12304·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Demetria Nicole Williams, appointed counsel for Russell Glenn Malone in this appeal from the district court’s denial of Malone’s motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), 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). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the [401] 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, and the district court’s denial of Malone’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Demetria Nicole Williams, appointed counsel for Russell Glenn Malone in this appeal from the district court’s denial of Malone’s motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), 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). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the [401] 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, and the district court’s denial of Malone’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is AFFIRMED.

United States v. Malone, 353 F. App'x 400 (11th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

353 F. App'x 400 (United States v. Malone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related