No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Elgin Ray LOFTON, A.K.A. E-Luv, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Elgin Ray LOFTON, A.K.A. E-Luv, Defendant-Appellant
09-10035.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jun 9, 2009.
Unpublished opinion
326 F. App'x 550
Elgin Ray Lofton, Lompoc, CA, pro se., Yvette Rhodes, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Black, Barkett, Cox.
Unpublished
PER CURIAM:
Leonard E. Clark, appointed counsel for Elgin Ray Lofton in this 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, 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 arguably meritorious issues, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the denial of Lofton’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is AFFIRMED.