Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abrhan Adrian URVINA-GARCIA, also known as Cesar Flores-Garcia, also known as Abrhan Garcia-Urvina, 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 381
Docket Number: No. 14-50628
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abrhan Adrian URVINA-GARCIA, also known as Cesar Flores-Garcia, also known as Abrhan Garcia-Urvina, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 605
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abrhan Adrian URVINA-GARCIA, also known as Cesar Flores-Garcia, also known as Abrhan Garcia-Urvina, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50628
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2015.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Laura G. Greenberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Abrhan Adrian Urvina-Garcia, Salters, SC, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Abrhan Adrian Urvina-Garcia 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). Urvi-na-Garcia 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.