Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noe GARCIA-NAJERA, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noe Garcia-Najera, also known as Juan Fontes-Galavis, also known as Miguel Villa-Villa, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-18
Citations: 669 F. App'x 737
Docket Number: No. 15-50928; Cons. w/ No. 15-50929 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noe GARCIA-NAJERA, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noe Garcia-Najera, also known as Juan Fontes-Galavis, also known as Miguel Villa-Villa, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 737–737

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noe GARCIA-NAJERA, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noe Garcia-Najera, also known as Juan Fontes-Galavis, also known as Miguel Villa-Villa, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-50928
Cons. w/ No. 15-50929 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 10/18/2016
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX.
Noe Garcia-Najera, Pro Se, Three Rivers, TX.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public DefEnder appointed to represent Noe Garcia-Najera 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). Garcia-Najera 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 appeals present 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 APPEALS ARE 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.