Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco ALVAREZ-MENDOZA, also known as Mario Quintero-Lara, also known as Juan Garcia-Molina, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-29
Citations: 579 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 13-41333
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco ALVAREZ-MENDOZA, also known as Mario Quintero-Lara, also known as Juan Garcia-Molina, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 299–299

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco ALVAREZ-MENDOZA, also known as Mario Quintero-Lara, also known as Juan Garcia-Molina, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-41333
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 29, 2014.
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, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for D efendant-App ellant.
Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.