Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leandro Joaquim DE SIQUEIRA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-18
Citations: 613 F. App'x 368
Docket Number: No. 14-50328
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leandro Joaquim DE SIQUEIRA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leandro Joaquim DE SIQUEIRA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50328
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2015.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Leandro Joaquim De Siqueira, pro se.
Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Leandro Joaquim De Siqueira 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 Siqueira has not filed a response, has completed his sentence, and has been removed from the United States. 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 in part as frivolous, see 5th Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot, see United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir.2007).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.