Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel MARTINEZ-ANDRES, also known as Miguel Ramo-Velasquez, also known as Mike Velasquez, also known as Miguel Romo Velasquez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-21
Citations: 653 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 15-41359
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel MARTINEZ-ANDRES, also known as Miguel Ramo-Velasquez, also known as Mike Velasquez, also known as Miguel Romo Velasquez, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 273–273

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel MARTINEZ-ANDRES, also known as Miguel Ramo-Velasquez, also known as Mike Velasquez, also known as Miguel Romo Velasquez, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-41359
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 06/21/2016
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Manuel Martinez-Andres, Post, TX, Pro Se.
Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.