Court Opinion

ID: 804646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-07-18 23:10:38+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:27.673241
License: Public Domain

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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                           July 18, 2012
                                      No. 10-10805
                                    c/w No. 11-11119                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                   Summary Calendar                             Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICK BLANKENSHIP,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeals from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 2:04-CR-32-1

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rick Blankenship 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). Blankenship 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 appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
                               No. 10-10805
                             c/w No. 11-11119

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE
DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

                                     2