Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rubicel CARDENAS-MENDOZA, also known as Caesar Cardenas-Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar Cardenas-Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-21
Citations: 671 F. App'x 935
Docket Number: No. 14-41406 Cons. w/No. 14-41407 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rubicel CARDENAS-MENDOZA, also known as Caesar Cardenas-Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar Cardenas-Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 935–935

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rubicel CARDENAS-MENDOZA, also known as Caesar Cardenas-Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar Cardenas-Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant
No. 14-41406 Cons. w/No. 14-41407 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 12/21/2016
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Rubicel Cardenas-Mendoza, Pro Se
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Ru-bicel Cardenas-Mendoza 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Cardenas-Mendoza 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 6th 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.