Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Diego Ivan LOPEZ-RUIZ, also known as Jesus Ivan Lopez-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-24
Citations: 606 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 14-40660
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Diego Ivan LOPEZ-RUIZ, also known as Jesus Ivan Lopez-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Diego Ivan LOPEZ-RUIZ, also known as Jesus Ivan Lopez-Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40660
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 24, 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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
DIEGO IVAN LOPEZ-RUIZ, PECOS,' TX, pro se.
Before DAVIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Diego Ivan Lopez-Ruiz 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). Lo pez-Ruiz 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth' in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.