Court Opinion

ID: 801917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-06-08 17:15:15+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:02.031289
License: Public Domain

Case: 11-41301       Document: 00511880648         Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/08/2012

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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                            June 8, 2012
                                     No. 11-41301
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EUSEBIO JIMENEZ-TREJO,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 5:10-CR-1978-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

       The attorney appointed to represent Eusebio Jimenez-Trejo has moved 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
  Case: 11-41301    Document: 00511880648     Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/08/2012

                                 No. 11-41301

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).
Jimenez-Trejo has been released from custody and, according to counsel, has
been deported. 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, 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.

                                       2