Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2008

United States v. Hicks

United States v. Hicks
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided May 27, 2008 · Black, Marcus, Tjoflat
278 F. App'x 976

Counsel

Richard A. Grossman, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant., Amy Levin Weil, Jon-Peter Kelly, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

United States v. Hicks

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

Richard A. Grossman, appointed counsel for William Hicks, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared 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 counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Hicks’s convictions and aggregate sentence are AFFIRMED.

Also, while counsel’s motion to withdraw was pending, Hicks filed three motions to compel production of transcripts and other documents. As neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure authorize discovery on appeal, Hicks’s motions are DENIED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.