Court Opinion

ID: 4506999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-02-13 01:00:22.227684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:29.215119
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-40468      Document: 00515308531        Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/12/2020

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

                                                                                 FILED
                                    No. 19-40468                          February 12, 2020
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO VILLASENOR-ORTIZ,

                                                Defendant−Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                                No. 7:19-CR-178-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

      The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Roberto Villasenor-

      * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 19-40468    Document: 00515308531     Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/12/2020

                                 No. 19-40468

Ortiz has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Villasenor-Ortiz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and
the relevant portions of the record.

      We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no non-
frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to with-
draw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,
and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

                                       2