Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel VALENCIA-GORCOCHEA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-19
Citations: 476 F. App'x 432
Docket Number: No. 11-41007
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel VALENCIA-GORCOCHEA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 476
Pages: 432–433

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel VALENCIA-GORCOCHEA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-41007
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 19, 2012.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Daniel Valencia-Gorcochea 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). Valencia-Gorcochea has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Valencia-Gorcochea's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous 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. Valencia-Gorcochea's motion for leave to proceed pro se is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.