No. 21-7710
Hernandez Lopaz Daniels v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: anders-v-california appellate-review counsel-withdrawal due-process eleventh-circuit frivolous-appeal frivolous-case meaningful-review
Latest Conference:
2022-05-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
I.
IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANDERS V. CALIFORINA, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), CAN COUNSEL SIMPLY WITHDRAW WITHOUT FINDING THE CASE TO BE "WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS" AS REQUIRED BY ANDERS?
II.
DID THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT VIOLATE ANDERS V. CALIFORINA, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) BY NOT FINDING THE ISSUE -AFTER FULL EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD- TO BE "WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS" AS REQUIRED BY ANDERS?
III.
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO CONDUCT A MEANINGFUL APPELLATE REVIEW BY FAILING TO EXPLAIN ITS REASON FOR DENIAL?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether counsel can withdraw without finding the case to be 'wholly frivolous' as required by Anders v. California
Docket Entries
2022-08-22
Rehearing DENIED.
2022-07-28
DISTRIBUTED.
2022-06-09
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2022-05-31
Petition DENIED.
2022-05-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/26/2022.
2022-05-09
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-04-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 26, 2022)
Attorneys
Hernandez L. Daniels
Hernandez Lopaz Daniels — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent