Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lois Guillermo SANCHEZ-REYES, also known as Luis Memo Salazar, also known as Guillermo Salazar, also known as Louis Sanchez-Reyes, also known as Luis Guillermo Sanchez-Reyes, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-18
Citations: 333 F. App'x 868
Docket Number: No. 08-10976
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lois Guillermo SANCHEZ-REYES, also known as Luis Memo Salazar, also known as Guillermo Salazar, also known as Louis Sanchez-Reyes, also known as Luis Guillermo Sanchez-Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 868–868

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lois Guillermo SANCHEZ-REYES, also known as Luis Memo Salazar, also known as Guillermo Salazar, also known as Louis Sanchez-Reyes, also known as Luis Guillermo Sanchez-Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10976
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2009.
Suzanna O. Etessam, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lois Guillermo Sanchez-Reyes, Seago-ville, TX, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lois Guillermo Sanchez-Reyes (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). Sanchez has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and Sanchez's response 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.