USA v. Willie Chevell Cameron, No. 06-13633 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 06-13633 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT December 26, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 05-00046-CR-5-RS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WILLIE CHEVELL CAMERON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _________________________ (December 26, 2006) Before BIRCH, CARNES and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Spyro Theodore Kypreos, appointed counsel for Willie Chevell Cameron on this direct criminal appeal, 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 (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 arguable issues of merit, counsel s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Cameron s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.1 1 Count One of the indictment, to which Cameron pled guilty, charged conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine (R.1-24). He only pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (R.3-84 at 14, 2728). The written judgment, however, lists the nature of the offense as conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine. (R.1-72 at 1.) Therefore, the judgment does not correctly reflect the offense of conviction. While this error does not undermine Cameron s conviction or affect his sentence in any way, the district court is instructed to correct the written judgment to properly describe the offense of conviction as involving only a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. 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.
