United States v. Marco Antonio Hernandez-Espinoza

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 13, 2010
No. 09-15090 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-00159-CR-5-RDP-PWG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARCO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ-ESPINOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(May 13, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John M. Kennemer, appointed counsel for Marco Antonio Hernandez-
Espinoza in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further
representation of the appellant and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Kennemer’s brief asserts nothing
more than a “bare conclusion” that Hernandez-Espinoza’s appeal lacks merit,
citing no authority to support his view that the appeal is frivolous. The brief falls
far short of the Anders protocol. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (after a
“conscientious examination” of the case, the attorney must submit a brief
“referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal”); see
also United States v. Blackwell, 767 F.2d 1486, 1487–88 (11th Cir. 1985) (the
Anders brief must point out “any irregularities in the trial process or other potential
error which, although in his judgment not a basis for appellate relief, might, in the
judgment of his client or another counselor or the court, be arguably meritorious”)
(emphasis in original).
Nonetheless, our independent examination of the entire record reveals no
arguably meritorious issues. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is
GRANTED, and Hernandez-Espinoza’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
2