USA v. Buddy Anderson, No. 11-10986 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-10986 Document: 00512146249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-10986 Conference Calendar February 19, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BUDDY WAYNE ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CR-104-1 Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Buddy Wayne Anderson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Anderson has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Anderson s response. We concur with counsel s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Specifically, while the magistrate judge * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-10986 Document: 00512146249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 No. 11-10986 and plea agreement incorrectly advised Anderson concerning the relevant statutory minimum and maximum terms, the district court informed Anderson of the correct sentencing terms and provided him the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea during the sentencing hearing. Anderson persisted in pleading guilty, however, thereby confirming the voluntariness of his plea and demonstrating that the misstatement concerning the sentencing terms did not affect his decision. Accordingly, counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. 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.