Court Opinion

ID: 4095646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-11-04 18:00:57.858577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:12:57.040063
License: Public Domain

Case: 16-40419      Document: 00513746997         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/04/2016

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

                                    No. 16-40419
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                                  FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                         November 4, 2016
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

JOSE PATINO-JAIMES, Also Known as Jose Patino,
 Also Known as Jose Patino Jaimes, Also Known as Mario Cantu,

                                                 Defendant–Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:15-CR-1546-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Patino-Jaimes

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-40419    Document: 00513746997     Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/04/2016

                                 No. 16-40419

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). Patino-Jaimes has filed a response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief, relevant portions of the record, and Patino-Jaimes’s response.
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