Court Opinion

ID: 66764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 06:13:59+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:20.112640
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                 FILED
                                                                            June 10, 2009
                                     No. 08-40918
                                   Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR HUMBERTO ARAGUZ-RAMIREZ, also known as V Ramos, also
known as Victor Ramos, also known as Jose Alfredo Araguz, also known as
Victor Ramirez-Gonzalez, also known as Victor Araguz, also known as Victor
Gonzalez-Ramirez,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:08-CR-77-ALL

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Humberto
Araguz-Ramirez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Araguz-Ramirez has
not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief
discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
                                No. 08-40918

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities
herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.

                                      2