Court Opinion

ID: 9779548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 23:08:28.502395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:32.582645
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10189         Document: 00516877057             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/29/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________

                                       No. 23-10189
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Dennis Kelly Williams,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:19-CR-622-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dennis Kelly
   Williams 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). Williams has not filed a response. We have reviewed
   counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10189    Document: 00516877057          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/29/2023

                                  No. 23-10189

   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.

                                       2