Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric COLINE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-05
Citations: 684 F. App'x 427
Docket Number: No. 15-20234 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric COLINE, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 684
Pages: 427–427

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eric COLINE, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-20234 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed April 5, 2017
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Eric Coline, Pro Se
Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Eric Coline has moved for leave to withdraw on the ground that there is no non-frivolous issue for appeal, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel's motion satisfies the requirements for Anders briefs. See id.; United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Coline has filed a response.
We have reviewed counsel's motion and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Coline's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. However, contrary to counsel's assertion, the judgment contains no clerical error. 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. Coline's motion for appointment of new counsel or, alternatively, for leave to proceed pro se is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). Coline's motion to supplement the record on appeal and to place the record on appeal under seal is also DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.