Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eustacio Cabrera MALDONADO, also known as Eustacio Maldonado, also known as Eustaciocabrera Maldonado, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-21
Citations: 555 F. App'x 469
Docket Number: No. 13-20173
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eustacio Cabrera MALDONADO, also known as Eustacio Maldonado, also known as Eustaciocabrera Maldonado, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 555
Pages: 469–469

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eustacio Cabrera MALDONADO, also known as Eustacio Maldonado, also known as Eustaciocabrera Maldonado, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-20173
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 21, 2014.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lourdes Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Eustacio Cabrera Maldonado 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). Maldonado has not filed a response and has been removed from the United States. 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 in part as frivolous, see 5th Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir.2007).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.