USA v. Floyd Reed, No. 10-50062 (5th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 10-50062 Document: 00511257206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-50062 Summary Calendar October 7, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FLOYD DAVID REED, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CR-19-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Floyd David Reed has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Reed has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. At his revocation hearing, Reed admitted the fact of his Texas conviction. This admission was a sufficient basis for the district court to revoke his supervised release. See, e.g., United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479, 480 (5th Cir. 2005) * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 10-50062 Document: 00511257206 Page: 2 No. 10-50062 Date Filed: 10/07/2010 (per curiam). The revocation proceedings also complied with the requirements of due process. See generally United States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). And the district court s decision to impose the statutory maximum sentence on revocation was not plainly erroneous. See, e.g., United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 265 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.