Court Opinion

ID: 614803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-10-05 17:32:35+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:22.477500
License: Public Domain

Case: 11-40322     Document: 00511622908         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/05/2011

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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                          October 5, 2011
                                     No. 11-40322
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SANTIAGO GONZALEZ-ROJAS, also known as Santiago Gonzalez-Riojas,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:10-CR-1082-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The attorney appointed to represent Santiago Gonzalez-Rojas 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). Gonzalez-Rojas 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 excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

        *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.