Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Moises GIL-PEREZ, also known as Carlos Gil-Perez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-21
Citations: 605 F. App'x 378
Docket Number: No. 14-40949
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Moises GIL-PEREZ, also known as Carlos Gil-Perez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 605
Pages: 378–379

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Moises GIL-PEREZ, also known as Carlos Gil-Perez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40949
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Moisés Gil-Perez (Gil) 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). Gil has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gil'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. Gil's request for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.