holding that appeal was equitably moot because of the appellant's "failure to seek a stay, the numerous transactions effectuated under that plan's provisions," and the fact that the plan had been substantially consummated
How later courts described this case
- holding that appeal was equitably moot because of the appellant's "failure to seek a stay, the numerous transactions effectuated under that plan's provisions," and the fact that the plan had been substantially consummated
- “[I]n light of Rotella’s failure to seek a stay, the numerous transactions effectuated under that plan’s provisions preclude the grant of any meaningful relief.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM:
Susan L. Brach, appointed counsel for Jerrod Brown in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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 Brown’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.