Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman TURLICH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-22
Citations: 78 F. App'x 432
Docket Number: No. 02-31257
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman TURLICH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 432–432

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman TURLICH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-31257.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 22, 2003.
Stephen A. Higginson, Assistant US Attorney, Stephen M. Huber, US Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Herman Turlich, Jr., pro se, Franklin-ton, LA, Defendant-Appellee.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Counsel for Herman Turlich, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Turlich has filed a response to the motion, contending that the district court erred in determining his sentence.
Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Turlich's response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Turlich waived the right to appeal his sentence, allowing only for appeals from sentences above the statutory limit or outside the determined guideline range. The sentencing issue he asserts is waived as Turlich's sentence fell within the guideline range determined by the district court. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir.1992).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.