Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco Javier MENDOZA-GOMEZ, also known as Alfredo Gomez-Morales, also known as Alberto Mendoza-Gomez, 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 405
Docket Number: No. 14-40543
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco Javier MENDOZA-GOMEZ, also known as Alfredo Gomez-Morales, also known as Alberto Mendoza-Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco Javier MENDOZA-GOMEZ, also known as Alfredo Gomez-Morales, also known as Alberto Mendoza-Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40543
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, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public .Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Javier Mendoza-Gomez.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). Mendoza-Gomez has filed a response which asks for the appointment of new counsel. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Mendoza-Gomez's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Mendoza-Gomez's motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.