You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

United States v. Rose

Citation: 375 F. App'x 391Docket: No. 09-50599

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; April 20, 2010; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The attorney representing Carvorsia Devionn Rose has requested permission to withdraw and submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, indicating that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Rose has not responded to this brief. After an independent review of the case record and the attorney's brief, the court found no viable issues for appeal. Consequently, the court has granted the attorney's motion to withdraw, excused them from further responsibilities, and dismissed the appeal. The opinion will not be published and is not considered precedent except in specific circumstances outlined by the court's rules.

Legal Issues Addressed

Anders Brief Procedure

Application: The attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, asserting there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Reasoning: The attorney representing Carvorsia Devionn Rose has requested permission to withdraw and submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, indicating that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Attorney Withdrawal

Application: The court granted the attorney's motion to withdraw after finding no viable issues for appeal following an independent review.

Reasoning: After an independent review of the case record and the attorney's brief, the court found no viable issues for appeal. Consequently, the court has granted the attorney's motion to withdraw, excused them from further responsibilities, and dismissed the appeal.

Non-Publication of Opinion

Application: The court's opinion will not be published and is not to be considered precedent except under specific circumstances.

Reasoning: The opinion will not be published and is not considered precedent except in specific circumstances outlined by the court's rules.