Court Opinion

ID: 6226575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 01:00:27.526186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:40.045475
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40598     Document: 00516205654         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/16/2022

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

                                                                              FILED
                                                                      February 16, 2022
                                  No. 21-40598                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                              Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Jose David Arteaga-Centeno,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 1:21-CR-109-1

   Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose David
   Arteaga-Centeno 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). Arteaga-Centeno has not filed a

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40598     Document: 00516205654         Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/16/2022

                                  No. 21-40598

   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.
   See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                       2