Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Raul Rubalcava HERNANDEZ, also known as Ricardo Ordonez, also known as Jose Rubalcava, also known as Jose Raul Rubalcava, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-15
Citations: 623 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 15-20132
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Raul Rubalcava HERNANDEZ, also known as Ricardo Ordonez, also known as Jose Rubalcava, also known as Jose Raul Rubalcava, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Raul Rubalcava HERNANDEZ, also known as Ricardo Ordonez, also known as Jose Rubalcava, also known as Jose Raul Rubalcava, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-20132
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jose Raul Rubalcava Hernandez, Pollock, LA, pro se.
Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Raul Rubalcava Hernan dez 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). Ru-balcava Hernandez has not filed a response. 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. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.