United States v. Patterson

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Patterson

223 F. App'x 908

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 2007

DocketNo. 05-15006

StatusPublished

This text of 223 F. App'x 908 (United States v. Patterson) 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. Patterson, 223 F. App'x 908 (11th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Neal Gary Rosensweig, appointed counsel for Ricky Eugene Patterson, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal 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 of the appeal regarding the district court’s denial of Patterson’s “Petition for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to [18] U.S.C.B ] 3582(c)(2) in Light of Amendment 591 of the U.S.S.G. Made Retroactive per [§ ] 1B1.10” dated July 12, 2005 (“ § 3582 petition”) is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw with regard to the appeal of the § 3582 petition is GRANTED and the district court’s denial of the § 3582 petition is AFFIRMED. Rosensweig’s motion to withdraw is granted only with regard to appeal of the § 3582 petition.

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

PER CURIAM:

Neal Gary Rosensweig, appointed counsel for Ricky Eugene Patterson, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal 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 of the appeal regarding the district court’s denial of Patterson’s “Petition for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to [18] U.S.C.B ] 3582(c)(2) in Light of Amendment 591 of the U.S.S.G. Made Retroactive per [§ ] 1B1.10” dated July 12, 2005 (“ § 3582 petition”) is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw with regard to the appeal of the § 3582 petition is GRANTED and the district court’s denial of the § 3582 petition is AFFIRMED. Rosensweig’s motion to withdraw is granted only with regard to appeal of the § 3582 petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 F. App'x 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-patterson-ca11-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack