Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Manuel TORRES-OJEDA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-09
Citations: 460 F. App'x 349
Docket Number: No. 10-51145
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Manuel TORRES-OJEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 460
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Manuel TORRES-OJEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-51145
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 9, 2012.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dusty Gallivan, Dusty Gallivan Law Firm, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Jose Torres-Ojeda 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). Torres-Ojeda 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.
In his amended brief, counsel requested that Torres-Ojeda be given additional time to respond to the statements in that brief. Torres-Ojeda took no action and filed nothing after counsel filed his original An-ders brief. In the intervening time between the amended brief and this order, he has similarly failed to file anything. Accordingly, we conclude that Torres-Oje-da has had sufficient time to file something if we wished to do so; the motion for additional time is DENIED as moot.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.