Court Opinion

ID: 22816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 08:02:55+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:46.549169
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 00-20281
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellee,

                              versus

ABELARDO GARCIA-CARPIO,

                                             Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. H-99-CR-591-1
_________________________________________________________________
                          January 3, 2001

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Appointed counsel for Abelardo Garcia-Carpio has filed a

motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Garcia has responded, asserting that his

rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations were

violated and that the PSR incorrectly calculated his criminal

history score; he further asserts that counsel was ineffective.

His ineffective assistance claim will not be considered in this

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
direct appeal.      See United States v. Gibson, 55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th

Cir. 1995); United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.

1987).

      Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Garcia’s response,

and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue.      Accordingly, the

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.

                                    MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                    2