Court Opinion

ID: 6320939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-08 01:00:27.631985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:00.326721
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20110      Document: 00516227774         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/07/2022

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

                                                                                  FILED
                                                                              March 7, 2022
                                  No. 21-20110                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                                  Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Leroy King,

                                                           Defendant—Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:09-CR-342-5

   Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Leroy King 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). King
   has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-20110    Document: 00516227774          Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/07/2022

                                  No. 21-20110

   portions of the record reflected therein, as well as King’s response. 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