Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis RIVERA-LOZANO, also know as Jose Luis Rivera, also known as Jose Rivera-Lozano, also known as Mario Benitez, also known as Anthony Uvalde, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-31
Citations: 342 F. App'x 979
Docket Number: No. 08-20741
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis RIVERA-LOZANO, also know as Jose Luis Rivera, also known as Jose Rivera-Lozano, also known as Mario Benitez, also known as Anthony Uvalde, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 342
Pages: 979–980

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis RIVERA-LOZANO, also know as Jose Luis Rivera, also known as Jose Rivera-Lozano, also known as Mario Benitez, also known as Anthony Uvalde, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-20741
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 31, 2009.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Rivera-Lozano (Rivera) 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). Rivera has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel's brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.