Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Guadalupe LUNA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-16
Citations: 597 F. App'x 282
Docket Number: No. 13-41300
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Guadalupe LUNA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Guadalupe LUNA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-41300
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 16, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, 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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
José Guadalupe Luna-Martinez, Post, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Guadalupe Luna-Martinez 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). Luna-Martinez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Luna-Martinez's response. 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. Luna-Martinez's request for the appointment of new 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.