Court Opinion

ID: 2783934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-03-04 19:00:54.814002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:02:51.592314
License: Public Domain

Case: 14-50786      Document: 00512956691         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/04/2015

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                                    No. 14-50786
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                                                            March 4, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

ROBERT LONDON, II,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

               Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                         Western District of Texas, Waco
                            USDC No. 6:12-CR-32-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Robert London, II, 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).
London 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

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-50786      Document: 00512956691   Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/04/2015

                                 No. 14-50786

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

                                       2