Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Zoel Alexis SANCHEZ, also known as Zoel A. Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-21
Citations: 475 F. App'x 962
Docket Number: No. 11-51173
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Zoel Alexis SANCHEZ, also known as Zoel A. Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 962–963

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Zoel Alexis SANCHEZ, also known as Zoel A. Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-51173
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 21, 2012.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Philip J. Lynch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.