United States v. Williams

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Williams. Read the opinion of the Court — 993 F.3d 976
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 14, 2021·No. 20-30470·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-30470 Document: 00515897590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED June 14, 2021 No. 20-30470 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Justin Peter Williams,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:19-CR-107-1

Before Davis, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Justin Peter Williams has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Williams has not filed a response. We have

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-30470 Document: 00515897590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2021

No. 20-30470

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

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

United States v. Williams, (5th Cir. 2021).

United States v. Williams (United States v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Flores
632 F.3d 229 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)