Court Opinion

ID: 4320253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-10-12 00:00:38.260755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:47:19.112592
License: Public Domain

Case: 17-11267      Document: 00514678321         Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/11/2018

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

                                    No. 17-11267                                FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                     October 11, 2018
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

RUBEN RANGEL-VARGAS,

                                                 Defendant–Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:16-CR-501-2

Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Ruben Rangel-Vargas 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). Rangel-Vargas has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as
Rangel-Vargas’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-11267   Document: 00514678321   Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/11/2018

                              No. 17-11267

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