Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin HERNANDEZ-JUAREZ, also known as Martin Lopez Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-25
Citations: 251 F. App'x 949
Docket Number: No. 06-20259
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin HERNANDEZ-JUAREZ, also known as Martin Lopez Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 949–949

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin HERNANDEZ-JUAREZ, also known as Martin Lopez Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-20259
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Martin Hernandez-Juarez 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). Hernandez-Juarez has filed a response which incorporates a motion for the appointment of substitute counsel or, in the alternative, for leave to proceed pro se and for an extension of time to file a pro se brief.
Hernandez-Juarez's motions are DENIED. Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and Hernandez-Juarez's response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.