Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Miguel SANCHEZ, also known as Jose M. Sanchez, also known as Jose Sanchez Zuniga, also known as Jose S. Zuniga, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-16
Citations: 563 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 13-20311
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Miguel SANCHEZ, also known as Jose M. Sanchez, also known as Jose Sanchez Zuniga, also known as Jose S. Zuniga, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 563
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Miguel SANCHEZ, also known as Jose M. Sanchez, also known as Jose Sanchez Zuniga, also known as Jose S. Zuniga, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-20311
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 16, 2014.
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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Miguel Sanchez 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). Sanchez 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.