Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria De Jesus Rodriguez CASTILLO, also known as Maria De Jesus Rodriguez, also known as Maria De Jesus Rodriguez-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-17
Citations: 469 F. App'x 405
Docket Number: No. 11-20209
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria De Jesus Rodriguez CASTILLO, also known as Maria De Jesus Rodriguez, also known as Maria De Jesus Rodriguez-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maria De Jesus Rodriguez CASTILLO, also known as Maria De Jesus Rodriguez, also known as Maria De Jesus Rodriguez-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-20209
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 17, 2012.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lee Harper Wilson, Counsel, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Maria De Jesus Rodriguez Castillo (Rodriguez) 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). Rodriguez 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 in part as frivolous, see 5th Cm. R. 42.2, and in part as moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir.2007).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5ti-i Cir. R. 47.5.4.