United States v. Purdue

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Purdue

325 F. App'x 813

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 2009

DocketNo. 08-16006

StatusPublished

This text of 325 F. App'x 813 (United States v. Purdue) 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. Purdue, 325 F. App'x 813 (11th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Randolph Murrell, appointed counsel for Shelton Purdue, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has 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 relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Randolph Murrell, appointed counsel for Shelton Purdue, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has 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 relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F. App'x 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-purdue-ca11-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack