Court Opinion

ID: 67646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 06:24:01+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:57.528162
License: Public Domain

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

                                                 FILED
                                                                           August 18, 2009
                                     No. 08-10976
                                  Conference Calendar                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LOIS GUILLERMO SANCHEZ-REYES, also known as Luis Memo Salazar, also
known as Guillermo Salazar, also known as Louis Sanchez-Reyes, also known
as Luis Guillermo Sanchez-Reyes,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:08-CR-29-4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lois Guillermo
Sanchez-Reyes (Sanchez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sanchez has filed
a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Sanchez’s
response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.               Accordingly, counsel’s

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-10976

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.

                                     2