Court Opinion

ID: 177961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-10-26 17:21:39+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:09.884441
License: Public Domain

Case: 09-50718 Document: 00511274357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010

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

                                                 FILED
                                                                          October 26, 2010
                                     No. 09-50718
                                  Conference Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARK DAVID CLOUD,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 6:09-CR-66-1

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Mark David Cloud has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Cloud has filed a response. Our independent review of the
record, counsel’s brief, and Cloud’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for
appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-50718 Document: 00511274357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2010

                                No. 09-50718

DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. Cloud’s motion for appointment of substitute
counsel is DENIED.

                                      2