Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Orlando RODRIGUEZ AMADOR, also known as Orlando Rodriguez, also known as Amador Orlando, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-19
Citations: 441 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 10-20815
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Orlando RODRIGUEZ AMADOR, also known as Orlando Rodriguez, also known as Amador Orlando, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Orlando RODRIGUEZ AMADOR, also known as Orlando Rodriguez, also known as Amador Orlando, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-20815
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 19, 2011.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lourdes Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Orlando Rodriguez Amador 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). Rodriguez Ama-dor has filed a response and has moved for the appointment of new counsel. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rodriguez Amador'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, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Rodriguez Amador's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Cf. United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.