Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Yakeline VASQUEZ-AREVALO, also known as Dolores Montecinos, also known as Dolores Arevalo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-18
Citations: 528 F. App'x 394
Docket Number: No. 12-20070
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Yakeline VASQUEZ-AREVALO, also known as Dolores Montecinos, also known as Dolores Arevalo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 528
Pages: 394–394

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Yakeline VASQUEZ-AREVALO, also known as Dolores Montecinos, also known as Dolores Arevalo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-20070
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 18, 2013.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lourdes Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Yakeline Vasquez-Arevalo, Houston, TX, pro se.
Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Yakeline Vasquez-Arevalo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Vasquez-Arevalo has not filed a response. She has been released from prison and has been removed from the United States. We have reviewed counsel's briefs 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 in part as frivolous, see 5th Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir.2007).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.