Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Pamela AGUILAR-MEJIA, also known as Maria Pamela Aguilar, also known as Pamela M. Aguilar, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-29
Citations: 581 F. App'x 355
Docket Number: No. 14-40014
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Pamela AGUILAR-MEJIA, also known as Maria Pamela Aguilar, also known as Pamela M. Aguilar, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 581
Pages: 355–355

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Pamela AGUILAR-MEJIA, also known as Maria Pamela Aguilar, also known as Pamela M. Aguilar, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40014
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 29, 2014.
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.
Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.