Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher CRAYTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-11
Citations: 389 F. App'x 433
Docket Number: No. 08-30656
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher CRAYTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 433–433

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher CRAYTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30656
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 11, 2010.
Suite B210, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Edwin Wayne Walker, Gretna, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
E. Wayne Walker, the attorney appointed to represent Christopher Crayton, has renewed his motion for leave to withdraw and has filed a supplemental brief. Crayton has filed a response.
Counsel has yet to comply fully with this court's prior orders to file a brief in conformance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Despite this court's prior instruction, the Anders briefs offer scant legal analysis regarding the validity of the guilty plea and do not cite to the specific record volumes.
Nevertheless, because our independent review of the record, counsel's briefs, and Crayton's response discloses no nonfrivo-lous issue for appeal, 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. Counsel, however, is CAUTIONED that failure to comply with any future order of this court could result in the imposition of sanctions, which may include denial of payment for services rendered and removal from the case.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.