United States v. Middlebrooks

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Middlebrooks

388 F. App'x 949

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJuly 26, 2010

DocketNo. 09-14374

StatusPublished

This text of 388 F. App'x 949 (United States v. Middlebrooks) 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. Middlebrooks, 388 F. App'x 949 (11th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

John R. Francisco, appointed counsel for Tavares Middlebrooks, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation, 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 is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Middlebrooks’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

John R. Francisco, appointed counsel for Tavares Middlebrooks, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation, 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 is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Middlebrooks’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 F. App'x 949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-middlebrooks-ca11-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack