Court Opinion

ID: 180805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-12-10 00:28:43+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:30.491765
License: Public Domain

Case: 10-20056 Document: 00511317655 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2010

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

                                                 FILED
                                                                          December 9, 2010
                                     No. 10-20056
                                   Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

ALFREDO MIRANDA-GONZALEZ, also known as Alfredo Miranda-Gonzales,
also known as Alfredo Miranda,

                                                   Defendant–Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:09-CR-101-1

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Alfredo Miranda-Gonzalez has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).           Miranda has not filed a response.              Our
independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous
issue for appeal.       Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-20056 Document: 00511317655 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2010

                               No. 10-20056

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

                                    2