Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abraham NEGRETE-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-18
Citations: 696 F. App'x 141
Docket Number: No. 16-51324 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abraham NEGRETE-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 141–141

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abraham NEGRETE-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-51324 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed August 18, 2017
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Abraham Negrete-Perez, Pro Se
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Abraham Negrete-Perez 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). Negrete-Perez has not filed a response. Although Negrete-Perez remains subject to a term of supervised release, he has completed the term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. 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 Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot, see United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.