Court Opinion

ID: 6349829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-15 00:00:20.453461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:49:28.422411
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40906     Document: 00516356856         Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/14/2022

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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                        June 14, 2022
                                  No. 21-40906                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Edward Bladimiro Nava,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                          USDC No. 7:20-CR-2136-2

   Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Edward Bladimiro Nava 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). Nava has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40906     Document: 00516356856          Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/14/2022

                                   No. 21-40906

   brief 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