Court Opinion

ID: 813717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-12-17 18:21:57+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:49.639794
License: Public Domain

Case: 12-50240       Document: 00512085532         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/17/2012

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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                        December 17, 2012
                                     No. 12-50240
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUBEN DARIO MUNOZ-PACHECO, also known as Ruben Munoz Pacheco,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:11-CR-2483-1

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ruben Dario Munoz-
Pacheco 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). Munoz-Pacheco has not filed a 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.

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.