Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paulo Osiel MONTOYA-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Paulo Montoya-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-16
Citations: 607 F. App'x 380
Docket Number: No. 14-41073
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paulo Osiel MONTOYA-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Paulo Montoya-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 380–381

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paulo Osiel MONTOYA-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Paulo Montoya-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41073
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Paulo Osiel Montoya-Rodriguez, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Paulo Osiel Montoya-Rodriguez 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). Montoya-Rodriguez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the' relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Montoya-Rodriguez's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. '