Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Baldemar CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-05
Citations: 298 F. App'x 398
Docket Number: No. 08-20113
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Baldemar CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 398–398

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Baldemar CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-20113
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 5, 2008.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Baldemar Cardenas 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). Cardenas has not filed a response.
Cardenas was serving a three-year term of supervised release when, in February 2008, he was arrested for violating the terms of his supervised release by failing to report to his probation officer. At his revocation hearing, Cardenas pleaded "true" to the allegations; and he raised no objections. The district court determined the advisory guideline range to be six to nine months imprisonment; and it imposed a sentence of nine months imprisonment. Our independent review of the record and counsel's brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.