Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cayetano GONZALEZ-VALVERDE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-12
Citations: 175 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 05-40418
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cayetano GONZALEZ-VALVERDE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 175
Pages: 686–686

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cayetano GONZALEZ-VALVERDE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40418.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 12, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Larry Chris lies, Rockport, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Cayetano Gonzalez-Valverde has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Gonzalez-Valverde filed a motion to remand, which we treat as an untimely response to the Anders brief. Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Gonzalez-Valverde's untimely response discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is granted, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Gonzalez-Valverde's separate motion seeking appointment of counsel on appeal is denied as Gonzalez-Valverde has not demonstrated incompatibility with his counsel or other most pressing circumstances. See Fifth Circuit Plan under the Criminal Justice Act, § 5; see also United States v. Route, 104 F.3d 59, 65 (5th Cir.1997).
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.