IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 00-30740
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JUSTIN E. CALLAHAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CR-69-ALL-C
_________________________________________________________________
April 13, 2001
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender has filed a motion to
withdraw from the representation of defendant Justin E. Callahan,
who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and
was sentenced to 180 months in prison. The Public Defender asserts
that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Callahan has
filed a response to this motion alleging that whether he was
properly sentenced as an armed career criminal presents a non-
frivolous issue.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), an appointed
attorney must follow established standards when seeking to withdraw
from a direct criminal appeal because the appeal lacks any arguable
issue. After a “conscientious examination” of the case, the
attorney must request permission to withdraw and must submit a
“brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably
support the appeal.” Id. at 744. The attorney must isolate
“possibly important issues” and must “furnish the court with
references to the record and legal authorities to aid it in its
appellate function.” United States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 1328, 1329
(5th Cir. 1976). After the defendant has had an opportunity to
raise any additional points, the court fully examines the record
and decides whether the case is frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at
744.
Our review of the record in this case reveals no non-frivolous
issues for appeal. Callahan’s indictment was sufficient; his
guilty plea was taken by the court under proper Rule 11 safeguards;
the court complied with Rule 32 by affording Callahan an
opportunity to address the court; and his sentence was properly
enhanced under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). The
motion to withdraw is therefore GRANTED and the conviction is
AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R.42.2.
2