Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0687-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector ESPARZA ALVAREZ, also known as Hector Esparza, also known as Hecleto Perales Esparza, also known as Hector Alvarez Esparza, also known as Hector Esparza-Alvarez, also known as Alverez Hector Esparza, also known as Lionel Sauceda, also known as Hector Alverez Esparza, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-20100
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 21, 2011.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Hector Esparza Alvarez, Pecos, TX, pro se.
    Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector Esparza Alvarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Es-parza Alvarez has filed a response, in which he requests appointment of counsel, and a supplemental response, which we have considered. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Espar-za Alvarez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Esparza Alvarez’s motion to supplement his response is GRANTED, his motions for appointment of counsel and for judicial notice are DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.