Court Opinion

ID: 7797677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-04 00:00:32.376166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:40.554452
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-51172     Document: 00516417959         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/03/2022

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

                                                                            FILED
                                  No. 21-51172                         August 3, 2022
                                Summary Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Leanna Kent,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 7:19-CR-231-2

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Leanna Kent 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).
   Kent has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-51172     Document: 00516417959          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/03/2022

                                   No. 21-51172

   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.

                                        2