Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christian ARROYO CAICEDO, also known as Carlos Manuel Velasquez Merced, also known as Jose Rafael Acaba Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-18
Citations: 613 F. App'x 361
Docket Number: No. 14-20210
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christian ARROYO CAICEDO, also known as Carlos Manuel Velasquez Merced, also known as Jose Rafael Acaba Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christian ARROYO CAICEDO, also known as Carlos Manuel Velasquez Merced, also known as Jose Rafael Acaba Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-20210
Conference Calendar. No. 14-20210.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’S Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Cynthia Jean-Marie Cline, Esq., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Christian Arroyo Caicedo, Folkston, GA, pro se.
Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.