Court Opinion

ID: 4687648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-18 00:00:25.729673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:42.397623
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-51016         Document: 00515865150          Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/17/2021

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                                                             FILED
                                                                         May 17, 2021
                                     No. 19-51016                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                  Conference Calendar                        Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Jarrod Crenshaw,

                                                               Defendant—Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                                 No. 7:17-CR-48-1

   Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Jarrod Crenshaw has moved to
   withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
   and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Crenshaw has not
   filed a response.

          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
   ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
   set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-51016    Document: 00515865150          Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/17/2021

                                  No. 19-51016

         We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record.
   We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-
   lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is
   GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and
   the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                       2