Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto ORTIZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-16
Citations: 604 F. App'x 364
Docket Number: No. 14-10873
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto ORTIZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: ■ Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 364–365

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alberto ORTIZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10873
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, William Ernest Hermesmeyer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
■ Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alberto Ortiz-Vasquez 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). Ortiz-Vasquez has filed a response seeking the appointment of new counsel. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ortiz-Vasquez's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Ortiz-Vasquez's request for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.