Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Soto, 11th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Michael Hanle, the appointed counsel for Leonel Soto, filed a motion to withdraw from representing Soto in his direct criminal appeal. Hanle also filed an Anders brief, which is a brief filed by defense counsel when there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. The court's independent review found counsel's assessment to be correct and that there were no arguable issues of merit in Soto's appeal. Therefore, the court granted Hanle's motion to withdraw and affirmed Soto's convictions and sentences.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-08-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-10258

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Michael Hanle, the appointed counsel for Leonel Soto, filed a motion to withdraw from representing Soto in his direct criminal appeal. Hanle also filed an Anders brief, which is a brief filed by defense counsel when there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. The court's independent review found counsel's assessment to be correct and that there were no arguable issues of merit in Soto's appeal. Therefore, the court granted Hanle's motion to withdraw and affirmed Soto's convictions and sentences.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    United States v. Soto, 11th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Michael Hanle, the appointed counsel for Leonel Soto, filed a motion to withdraw from representing Soto in his direct criminal appeal. Hanle also filed an Anders brief, which is a brief filed by defense counsel when there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal. The court's independent review found counsel's assessment to be correct and that there were no arguable issues of merit in Soto's appeal. Therefore, the court granted Hanle's motion to withdraw and affirmed Soto's convictions and sentences.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FILED

    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS


    ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-10258
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________

    AUG 24, 2011


    JOHN LEY
    CLERK

    D.C. Docket No. 2:09-cr-00153-CLS-PWG-2


    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    LEONEL SOTO,
    a.k.a. Ramadan,
    a.k.a. Carols Ramirez Soto,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Alabama
    ________________________
    (August 24, 2011)
    Before HULL, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael P. Hanle, appointed counsel for Leonel Soto in this direct criminal

    appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and
    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
    counsels assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because
    independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issue of merit,
    counsels motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Sotos convictions and
    sentences are AFFIRMED.

    You might also like