Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcelino FLORES-BETANCOURT, also known as Elacar Flores Betancourt, also known as Marcelo Flores, also known as Marcelo Flores Betancourt, also known as Elacar Flores Berancourt, also known as Marcelo Betancourt Flores, also known as Marcelino Flores Betancourt, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-25
Citations: 543 F. App'x 433
Docket Number: No. 13-20016
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcelino FLORES-BETANCOURT, also known as Elacar Flores Betancourt, also known as Marcelo Flores, also known as Marcelo Flores Betancourt, also known as Elacar Flores Berancourt, also known as Marcelo Betancourt Flores, also known as Marcelino Flores Betancourt, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 433–433

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcelino FLORES-BETANCOURT, also known as Elacar Flores Betancourt, also known as Marcelo Flores, also known as Marcelo Flores Betancourt, also known as Elacar Flores Berancourt, also known as Marcelo Betancourt Flores, also known as Marcelino Flores Betancourt, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-20016
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrew J. Williams, Kingwood, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Marcelino Flores-Betancourt 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). Flores-Betanc-ourt 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 Cm. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.