Court Opinion

ID: 6337546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-04 00:00:30.413301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:07.861483
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-11075      Document: 00516304683         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/03/2022

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

                                                                        FILED
                                                                     May 3, 2022
                                  No. 21-11075
                                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                        Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Christopher Rangel,

                                                          Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 1:21-CR-20-1

   Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Rangel 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). Rangel has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-11075    Document: 00516304683          Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/03/2022

                                  No. 21-11075

   and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 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