Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fabian ROJAS-FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-20
Citations: 375 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 09-40573
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fabian ROJAS-FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fabian ROJAS-FIGUEROA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-40573
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 20, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fabian Rojas-Figueroa 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). Rojas-Figueroa has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel's brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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. The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marcos Reyes-Idrogo 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). Reyes-Idrogo has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel's brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cut. R. 47.5.4.