Case ID: f-appx_201/html/0727-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando Vidal ENCINAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-11386
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Oct. 23, 2006.
    Thomas H. Ostrander, Bradenton, FL, Defendant-Appellant.
    Karin B. Hoppmann, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Counsel in this direct criminal appeal has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The defendant has moved, pro se, for the appointment of substitute counsel. 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 issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, Vidal Encinas’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, and Vidal Encinas’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.