Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Qualon Rashard WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-18
Citations: 695 F. App'x 817
Docket Number: No. 16-11617 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Qualon Rashard WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 817–817

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Qualon Rashard WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-11617 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed August 18, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Qualon Rashard Williams, Pro Se
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Qualon Rashard Williams 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). Williams has not filed a response. Although Williams remains subject to a term of supervised release, he has completed the term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. 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 nonfrivo-lous 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. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.