Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy L. COLLIER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-01
Citations: 710 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 17-11227 Non-Argument Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy L. COLLIER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy L. COLLIER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-11227 Non-Argument Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
(February 1, 2018)
Aine Ahmed, Kathryn Dee Risinger, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Panama City, FL, Christopher P. Canova, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tallahassee, FL, Robert G. Davies, Lennard B. Register, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
Tracy L. Collier, Pro Se
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rachel R. Seaton, appointed counsel for Tracy Collier in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Collier 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 Seaton's assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, the motion to withdraw from further representation is GRANTED and Collier's total sentence is AFFIRMED.
. This Court has previously affirmed Collier's convictions, but we vacated his total sentence and remanded for resentencing because the District Court failed to make adequate findings as to (1) whether Collier had reason to know that the conspiracy that formed the basis for his charges involved over 50 victims, such that a number of victims enhancement was appropriate, and (2) whether Collier was entitled to a mitigating role reduction. See United States v. Taylor, 652 Fed.Appx. 902 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. Collier v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1232, 197 L.Ed.2d 468 (2017).