Court Opinion

ID: 7801886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-08-19 00:00:25.422446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:29:21.678667
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40673     Document: 00516438648         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/18/2022

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

                                                                           FILED
                                  No. 21-40673                       August 18, 2022
                                Summary Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Rubicel Cardenas-Mendoza,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 2:14-CR-504-5

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Rubicel Cardenas-Mendoza 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). Cardenas-Mendoza has not filed a response. We have

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40673    Document: 00516438648          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/18/2022

                                  No. 21-40673

   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.

                                       2