Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Junior STANDLY MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-01
Citations: 605 F. App'x 426
Docket Number: No. 14-20658
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Junior STANDLY MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 605
Pages: 426–427

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Junior STANDLY MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-20658
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 1, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
' Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Junior Standly Martinez-Martinez, FCI Williamsburg, Salters, SC, pro se.
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Junior Standly Martinez-Martinez 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). Martinez-Martinez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Martinez-Martinez's response. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.