Court Opinion

ID: 7797267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-03 00:00:24.501188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:35.608501
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10032     Document: 00516416693         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/02/2022

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                                                             FILED
                                  No. 22-10032                          August 2, 2022
                                Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Michael Ray,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 3:21-CR-169-1

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael Ray has
   moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders
   v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229
   (5th Cir. 2011). Ray has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10032     Document: 00516416693          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/02/2022

                                   No. 22-10032

   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. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                        2