Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    United States v. Louis Askew, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It details that Louis Askew's appointed counsel, Philip Horowitz, filed a motion to withdraw from representing Askew in his direct criminal appeal. Horowitz also filed an Anders brief, indicating there were no arguable issues of merit to raise on appeal. After reviewing the entire court record, the panel of judges affirmed Askew's convictions and sentences and granted Horowitz's motion to withdraw. Askew's request for substitute counsel was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Louis Askew, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It details that Louis Askew's appointed counsel, Philip Horowitz, filed a motion to withdraw from representing Askew in his direct criminal appeal. Horowitz also filed an Anders brief, indicating there were no arguable issues of merit to raise on appeal. After reviewing the entire court record, the panel of judges affirmed Askew's convictions and sentences and granted Horowitz's motion to withdraw. Askew's request for substitute counsel was denied.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-01-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-10613

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It details that Louis Askew's appointed counsel, Philip Horowitz, filed a motion to withdraw from representing Askew in his direct criminal appeal. Horowitz also filed an Anders brief, indicating there were no arguable issues of merit to raise on appeal. After reviewing the entire court record, the panel of judges affirmed Askew's convictions and sentences and granted Horowitz's motion to withdraw. Askew's request for substitute counsel was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Louis Askew, 11th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It details that Louis Askew's appointed counsel, Philip Horowitz, filed a motion to withdraw from representing Askew in his direct criminal appeal. Horowitz also filed an Anders brief, indicating there were no arguable issues of merit to raise on appeal. After reviewing the entire court record, the panel of judges affirmed Askew's convictions and sentences and granted Horowitz's motion to withdraw. Askew's request for substitute counsel was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    Case: 14-10613

    Date Filed: 01/26/2015

    Page: 1 of 2

    [DO NOT PUBLISH]


    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 14-10613
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:02-cr-20119-FAM-3

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    LOUIS ASKEW,
    a.k.a. Dreads,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (January 26, 2015)
    Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Case: 14-10613

    Date Filed: 01/26/2015

    Page: 2 of 2

    Philip R. Horowitz, appointed counsel for Louis Askew 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). In a pro se response to counsels motion to
    withdraw, Askew requests the appointment of substitute counsel. 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 issues of merit, counsels motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and
    Askews convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. Askews pro se motion for
    substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Young, 482 F.2d 993, 995 (5th
    Cir. 1973).

    You might also like