Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Doreteo GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-18
Citations: 613 F. App'x 347
Docket Number: No. 14-41286
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Doreteo GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 347–348

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Doreteo GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41286
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Soko-low, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Doreteo Garcia 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 has not filed a response. Although Garcia remains subject to a term of supervised release, he has completed the term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. 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 in part as frivolous, see 42.2, and in part as moot, see Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.