Court Opinion

ID: 4315627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-09-26 18:00:20.823579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:01:09.931306
License: Public Domain

Case: 18-10572      Document: 00514657217        Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/26/2018

          IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                   FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                                    No. 18-10572                    United States Court of Appeals

                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                           FILED
                                                                   September 26, 2018
                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

DANIEL DIXON, also known as Jason Lee Smallwood,

                                                Defendant−Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                                 No. 3:16-CR-29-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

      The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Daniel Dixon moves

      * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 18-10572    Document: 00514657217     Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/26/2018

                                 No. 18-10572

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). Dixon has not filed
a response.

      We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record.
We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous
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