Case ID: f-appx_603/html/0338-01.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. Felix GARCIA-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-40867
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 15, 2015.
    . Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Felix Garcia-Espinoza, Cl Dalby, Post, TX, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felix Garcia-Espinoza 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). Garcia-Espinoza has not filed a response.

Garcia-Espinoza voluntarily dismissed his prior appeal, which places him the position of someone who has never filed an appeal. See Colbert v. Brennan, 752 F.3d 412, 416 (5th Cir.2014). His most recent notice of appeal is untimely, but that is no jurisdictional bar in this criminal appeal. See United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir.2007). We therefore have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. 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, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.