Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Cecilio DE LA CRUZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-21
Citations: 475 F. App'x 957
Docket Number: No. 12-40024
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Cecilio DE LA CRUZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 957–958

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Cecilio DE LA CRUZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-40024
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 21, 2012.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Carlos Cecilio De La Cruz-Martinez, Pollock, LA, pro se.
Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Cecilio De La Cruz-Martinez 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). De La Cruz-Martinez has not filed a response. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.