Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose VILLANUEVA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-20
Citations: 555 F. App'x 422
Docket Number: No. 13-40713
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose VILLANUEVA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 555
Pages: 422–422

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose VILLANUEVA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-40713
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 2014.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Omar Weaver Rosales, Rosales & Associates, L.L.P., Harlingen, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jose Villanueva-Torres, Raymondville, TX, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Jose Villanueva-Torres 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). Villanueva-Tor-res 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. 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 light of the magistrate judge's explanation during the rearraignment hearing of the exceptions to the appeal waiver and the absence of such exceptions in Villa-nueva-Torres's plea agreement, we preter-mit any determination concerning the validity of the appeal waiver. See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 517-18 (5th Cir.1999).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.