Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gabriel De Jesus HERNANDEZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Gustavo Leal-Chavez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-27
Citations: 471 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 11-41317
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gabriel De Jesus HERNANDEZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Gustavo Leal-Chavez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 413–413

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gabriel De Jesus HERNANDEZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Gustavo Leal-Chavez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-41317
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 27, 2012.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gabriel De Jesus Hernandez-Sanchez (Hernandez) 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). Hernandez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hernandez'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. Hernandez's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.